of this covenant but no other impenitence or unbelief but that which is final and for this as is affirmed Christ never died To this I say If unbelief and impenitence be not breaches or violations of covenant properly so called then final unbelief and impenitence is no breach or violation of covenant properly so called This is clear Final perseverance in unbelief and impenitence is no more then a continuance of the same posture or state of Soul God ward in which they before stood in impenitence or unbelief As Perseverance in faith and repentance is the continuance of faith and repentance If then final unbelief and impenitence be a breach of the covenant of grace then all unbelief and impenitence denominating a man an unbeleeving and impenitent person is a breach of covenant likewise CHAP. XLV The question stated concerning the Birth-Priviledge of the issue of Beleevers A Fourth difference supposed to be and assigned by some between the first and second covenant is That the first Covenant was in that latitude to comprize not alone unregenerate men professing the worship of the true God but the whole of the seed of those that made such profession But the second covenant is entred personally and so vested in them that make actually profession of it that it is terminated in them and none of their seed are taken in with them Here I cannot be so clear in my method as in the former some have so mudded the way that it is not easie to proceed in any faire and cleare order As to the latter branch concerning the New Covenant their opinion is fully and clearly enough held out All beleevers according to them are in covenant and onely those that actually beleeve They entitle themselves but cannot interest their seed in any title to it But as to the first Covenant some make it to consist meerly of carnal promises and Circumcision they answerably make a carnal badge and so their opinion is clear that the first descends to posterity but not the second The seed is included in the first carnal covenant but excluded from the second But one undertaking a full Comment upon those words of the Covenant Gen. 17. 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed distinguishes of the seed of Abraham and saith it is many wayes so called and by his distinction instead of clearing much darkens the thing in question 1. Christ is called the seed of Abraham by excellency Gal. 3. 16. 2. All the Elect Rom. 9. 7. all Beleevers Rom. 4. 11 12 16 17 18. are called the seed of Abraham that is the spiritual seed 3. There was a natural seed of Abraham to whom the inheritance did accrue this was Isaac Gen 21. 12. 4. A natural seed whether lawful as the sons of Keturah or base as Ishmael to whom the inheritance belonged not Gen. 15. 5. Here by the way he much mistakes himself 1. In casting Ishmael out of Covenant in that manner that all the time of his Circumcision he had not any title to it as afterwards he more fully explaines himself to that end that he might make were it possible the Covenant and the Seale distinct of themselves without any relation one to the other Conceiving some to be sealed that were never in Covenant and some to be in Covenant that were never sealed But Ishmael was in covenant as was Esau also at his Circumcision and his circumcision were there no more arguments doth witnesse it Gen. 17. 11. Ye shall Circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin and it shall be a token of the Covenant between me and you Circumcision was bottomed on the Command we grant had there been no institution no man might have presumed to have signed it with such a Seale but the Command had relation to the Covenant Men in Covenant were the adequate subject of Circumcision and are of Baptisme Gen. 17. 9 10. God said to Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-man-childe among you shall be circumcised He was indeed after cast out with his seed as was Esau not by a Church-censure as Master Cotton affirmes Holinesse of Church-Members Church-censures fall not so heavy as to reach all posterity but by divine prerogative as the Apostle Rom. 9. abundantly declares His casting out sufficiently argues that he was once in and when he received the token of the covenant he was in covenant 2. He does ill in laying upon Ishmael the brand of bastardy as though he were a sonne of whoredomes to faithful Abraham Concubines in Scripture have the name of wives and their seed was ever accounted legitimate neither will this serve his purpose at all to argue Ishmael out of Covenant It was the case of Dan and Nepthali Gad and Asher out of whose loines a considerable part of Gods Covenant-people did issue as well as Ishmaels And could he fasten that ignominy on Abraham and Ishmael to make it an illegitimate issue yet this would not cast Ishmael out of covenant It was the case of Pharez Zarah Jephthah and yet they were all in Covenant with God 2. He makes applicat on of this distinction and saith Of the three former kinds of Abrahams seed the promise recited is meant but in a different manner thus That God promiseth he will be a God to Christ imparting in him blessings to all the Nations of the earth to the spiritual seed of Abraham in Evangelical benefits to the natural seed inheriting in domestick and political benefits So that it evidently appeares that he casts out all the natural seed of Abraham legitimate or base as he calls them inheriting or not inheriting from any title to that Covenant save in domestick and political benefits Here I shall undertake a Position in full opposition that that Covenant in those words exprest 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 to they seed after thee Gen. 17. 7. in their fullest latitude as they are there spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. But before I come to the confirmation of it which is a matter of ease if any give me leave as well for the help of the Reader as satisfaction of the Adversary to premise some things to avoid all misunderstandings being necessitated to it by the foul miscarriage of some in their stating of this question First we take not in all the natural seed of Abraham as the Position plainly expresseth but the seed by promise which I understand not of the Elect or Regenerate seed but of that seed which God by miracle according to promise gave to Abraham by Sarah when she was past years of
child-bearing The natural posterity which was the birth by Promise we only understand And so the Apostle explaines it Rom. 9. 7 8. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called That is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the Promise are counted for the seed Where children of God is taken in the same latitude as Adoption ver 4 comprizing all the visible body of the Jewes as it is also taken Deut. 14. 1. Only those that are borne by Promise are included and all the sonnes of Ishmael and Keturah though their parents were once in Covenant are by Gods special command shut out Neither are all these included for as God cast off Ishmael and his seed so he also cast out Esau and his posterity Therfore the Apostle having brought the former distinction of seeds rests not there but addes verse 10 11 12 13. And not only this but when Rebecca also had conceived by one even by our Father Isaac for the children being not yet borne neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to Election might stand not of works but of him that calleth It was said unto her the elder shall serve the younger as it is written Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated And therefore the denomination of the seed is in Jacob sirnamed Israel Therefore when the head or if you will the root of the covenant is mentioned in Scripture it is not barely Abraham but Abraham and Isaac to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line not barely Abraham and Isaac but Abraham Isaac and Jacob. The natural seed of Jacob then not according to ours but Gods own limits is included in that covenant in the full latitude and extent of it Secondly we do not say that this covenant was entred with Abraham as a natural Father nor his seed comprehended as natural children we well know that quâ tale is omne then all natnral parents were in Covenant in that they had natural children and all natural children were in Covenant because they were the natural issue of their parents Abrahams Father was a natural father and Abraham was his natural son yet neither of them upon that account were in covenant we say it was entred with Abraham accepting the termes of it from God for himself and his natural issue all his natural issue not by God himself excluded were in covenant He that made the covenant according to his good pleasure might put limits to it Abraham may be considered 1. As a man the Son of Terah of the race of Adam 2. As accepting of Gods call and receiving his tender for him and his 3. As a faithful and an upright man regenerate and stedfast in covenant It is not as man that God enters covenant in this latitude for Abraham himself was not thus in covenant If he had been in covenant as a man then no man had been out of covenant Neither is it as an upright man before God and keeping covenant for those of his posterity whose hearts were not stedfast were in covenant and did hand it over to their seed But as a professour of the Faith accepting the covenant taking God for his God in contradistinction to false gods he accepted it for himself and for his seed his natural posterity And all that professe the faith hold in the like tenure are in covenant and have the covenant not vested in their own persons only but enlarged to posterity Thirdly we entitle the seed of Abraham as before to spiritual mercies and so the seed of all that hold in the tenure of Abraham to saving grace and life eternal not by an absolute conveyance infallibly to inherit we know though Israel be as the sand of the sea yet a remnant only shall be saved Rom. 9. 27. but upon Gods termes and conditions in the Gospel held out of God to his people Salvation is made over by vertue of covenant to all thus in covenant in that sense as Christ speaks John 4. 22. Salvation is of the Jews In that sense as Christ useth it of Zacheus family This day is salvation come this house Luke 19. 9. In that sense as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaks of it where he sets out the danger of neglecting so great salvation Heb. 2. 3. In that sense as I conceive the Apostle speaks of it where he saith that upon the cal of the Jews All Israel shall be saved Rom. 11. 26 They shall enjoy those priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained and this is all that can by any means be squeezed out of their words that say the covenant of Grace was made of God with Abraham and his natural seed or with beleevers and their seed It is even irksome to read the large businesse that is made to find out our meaning about the covenant of God made with Abraham and his seed and we must per force confesse that we mean it of a covenant infallibly absolutely to conferre grace and consequently salvation To be so in Covenant as that a man cannot fall from it To this end words of mine are produced that I never uttered and several arguments produced against this supposed tenent and authorities multiplied out of Protestant Writers Beza Twisse Wallaeus The Annotations on the Bible Ames Paraeus Downham I am content that all these Worthies shall still stand up in their honour and that this shadow should fall with shame as well as I am that Bellarmine Stapleton a Lapide Becanus Estius should fall with it whose arguments in this controversie one after other have been brought against me To draw all up towards a conclusion All that is necessarily included in Gods entrance of covenant with a people engaging to be their God and taking them for his people is here by this grand Charter of Heaven made over to Abraham and his natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. All their posterity are branches of this root by nature simply considered and they are holy branches by vertue of this covenant which necessarily implies priviledge of Ordinances the fruition of Gods Oracles which are his covenant-draughts without which no people are in Covenant but all are strangers And this priviledge of Ordinances implies also all Priviledges leading to and accompanying salvation and salvation it self upon Gods terms in his word revealed and so before the disputation the Reader hath my supposition CHAP. XLVI Arguments concluding the natural issue of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be taken into Covenant MY first Argument is taken from the addition annext to this covenant in the words immediately following The Lord having made a covenant in full words with Abraham and his seed he addes and I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession and
nature and natural is only by birth and off spring Peter Paul Barnabas were all naturally Jewes borne of Jewish Parents and bred up in the way and Religion of the Jewes such onely Christ chose for Apostles being himself a Minister of the Circumcision Peter therefore being one of the twelve must necessarily be such Paul was such as we know from his own mouth a Jew and of the Tribe of Benjamine Barnabas was such of the Tribe of Levi. And being such they enjoyed a priviledge which the Gentiles wanted they were by birth and off-spring of a Nation that is holy No Nation was so great as they who had God so nigh unto them who had statutes and judgements so righteous The Jew had every way prerogatives and advantages but chiefly the Oracles of God God had not dealt so with every Nation when other Nations were without God they had God nigh unto them when others were uncleane they were holy This great priviledge of Birth Gentiles wanted and so were by off-spring sinners as Birth renders all so they remaine unholy and uncleane among the unholy and unclean without any such title to the Covenant of God that thereby they might obtaine any other denomination they are dogs while the people in Covenant are children And by this means the seeming opposition which is between this text and that of the Apostle Ephes 2. 3. is easily reconciled Here the Apostle makes an opposition nature between Jews and Gentiles Jewes by nature had priviledge above Gentiles There he makes Jewes and Gentiles in nature equal We saith he were by nature children of wrath as well as others as well as Heathens that have no Birrh priviledge Nature in that Text is not the same as nature in this Nature there is taken for the qualification of nature which is equally defiled in Jewes and Gentiles which is there evidenced in the conversation of the Jewes being before convertion by grace the very same with the Gentiles Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the minde and were by nature children of wrath even as others Nature here is taken for a Birth-priviledge and so the Jews though in themselves sinners are reputed an holy people a people by covenant holy to the Lord. Nature simpl considered is stained and renders Jewes and Gentiles equally sinners and obnoxious to Gods wrath of which Justification by faith is an acknowledgement as the Apostle here shews verse 17. But birth of Jewish Ancestors of the stock of Israel puts them into a select condition into the number of a people holy to the Lord. Neither is this any contradiction common things dedicated for holy service and use are holy A people by nature sinners dedicated to the Lord are for holy service and use for the service of the Lord when others are for service of idols Therefore jerusalem a City none of the holiest for any transcendent manners of the inhabitants thereof is yet called by the Evangelist the holy City by reason of the Temple and worship there that were holy That which is a priviledge of nature or birth belongs to the natural issue that cannot be denied But to be incovenant with God as a people holy and exceeding others that are without as sinners is a priviledge of nature or birth therefore this priviledge belongs to the natural issue This Argument as it is cleare of it selfe so it hath this advantage that for interpretation of the word Nature it hath approbation from profest adversaries one saith I grant his sense of the word Nature and that the Apostle there speaks of himself and other Jewes as in reputation more holy then the Gentiles because of their interest in Circumcision and observance of Moses Law And this grant involves him not in a few contradictions 1. That this was a Birth-priviledge as he here acknowledges being the Jews priviledge by birth of nature and therefore belonged to the natural seed when 〈◊〉 elsewhere he saith they inherit onely domestick and civil benefits 2. This interest in Circumcision and observance of Moses Law was a priviledge of Ordinances and he is wont to deny that birth entitles any to such priviledges 3. This is spiritual mercy which the Jews here had in Circumcision and Moses Law Circumcision by his confession seales Gospei-mercies the same that Baptism sealeth And Moses in the Law wrote of Christ John 1 45. John 5. 46. and yet he denies the natural seed any Promise of spiritual mercies Any one of these arguments severally much more all joyntly make good this Position that all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob are in that great Charter vouchsafed of God taken into covenant so as to be the people of God and to enjoy all priviledges of his people in order upon Gods termes to everlasting salvation CHAP. XLVII ROM 9. 6 7 8. Vindicated THough I hear of none that have much to say to all these Scriptures as indeed little rather nothing can be said they hold forth with so clear a light a covenant in that latitude and with those prerogatives as you have heard yet one hath a Text of Scripture not to clear any one but to silence and overthrow them all and that is the words of the Apostle Rom. 9. 6 7 8. where the Apostle having sufficiently hinted to them the rejection of a great part of the Jews in his profession of that great heavinesse and sorrow of heart in their behalf and that he could wish that himself were accursed from Christ for them undertakes to answer an objection If Israel be cast off then the Word of God will be of none effect his promise will faile But the promise of God made with his people cannot faile therefore Israel in such a considerable number is not cast off In which place saith One this very Text that now is the apple of our contention was brought into question This Argument thus held out in behalf of the Anabaptists is borrowed from Stapleton the Jesuite at least Stapleton hath gone before him in it and he hath learned to a haire to follow him Stapleton in his antidote undertaking to make good that Calvin contradicts the Apost which he puts into his Marg. saith Calvin says that the whole progeny of Abraham is holy because God entred the covenant of life with him in these words I will be a God to thee and thy seed that is according to Calvin to all that shall descend from him to all that according to the flesh are borne to him as also now the partition-wall being taken away to all the children of Christians which according to the flesh shal be born to them And Calvin addeth saith he that God calls all of the off-spring of Israel his children But saith he the Apostle speaks the contrary expressely They are not all Israel that are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they
all children but in Isaac shal thy seed be caled that is they that are the children of the flesh those are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed But saith he the children of the promise are children born after the Spirit whether they descended from Abraham and Isaac or no with much more to this purpose We have drunk up the Protestants poison and their great care is to preserve their party by the Jesuites antidote They are wholly beholding to them for the receipt what probatum est they can write upon it must be examined And that they may not deny but in the examination of this triumphing Argument they have square dealing I shall give you the Authours words at length I deny not saith he but there was some other promise included in that objection to wit some promise made to Israel or the house of Israel probably that Jerem. 31. 33 36 37. For so the words verse 6. They are not all Israel which are of Israel do intimate But without question the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. 7. was one which was included in that objection Beza Twisse Ames and others answering Arminius call it the Covenant of God with Abraham which was that Gen. 17. 7. and the very phrase of Abrahams seed in Isaac shall thy seed be called verse 7. The children of the promise are counted for the seed verse 8. Sarah shall have a sonne as verse 9. do evidently shew that the promise objected to prove that if the Jews were rejected from being Gods people then God failed in making good his word was that promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed whereto I may adde that the answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants to wit Baine and Ames do say it was the word of promise not of the Law as Arminius conceived for the word of promise saith Ames Animadv in Remonstran Script Synod de praedest Cap. 8. Sect. 4. is distinguished and opposed to the words of the Law Gal. 3. 17 18. Now the word of the promise there is to Abraham and his seed verse 16. and this is there called by him verbum foederis the word of the Covenant now let us consider how the Apostle answers it He denies that Gods Word made to Abraham did fall though the Jews were rejected because that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it comprehended saving grace was never meant by God of all Abraham posterity or of any barely as they were descended from Abraham by natural generation but of the Elect whether descended by natural generation from Abraham or not And this is apparent both from the words vers 7. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called vers 8. It is expounded thus that is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed Whence it is apparent that the same are not always the seed by calling which are the seed of Abraham by natural generation and that the children of the flesh are not the same with the children of the promise and that the Apostle conceived this the right may of answering those that objected the falling of Gods word upon the rejection of the Jews by restraining the promise of being God to Abrahams seed only to the Elect whether of Abrahams natural posterity or not with so little respect to any birth-right-priviledge that he not onely rejected Ishmael and took Isaac but also loved Jacob and hated Esau by prophecie declaring his minde The elder shall serve the younger and in this the Apostle acquits God from unrighteousnesse in that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and whom he will he hardens notwithstanding his promise made to Abraham and Israel or any Birth-priviledge they could claime Yeelding that this Text in that place is brought into question by the Apostle Before I come to the Apostles words themselves I have divers Queres to put 1. How Baine and Ames come to the name of Remonstrants I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-Remonstrants 2. Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the covenant there spoken to was the word of the Law and not of Promise I am sure in his Analysis on this Chapter to the Romans he speaks in another manner even in our authours own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other The sons of the flesh with the Apostle saith he are those that by the works of the Law follow after righteousnesse and salvation The sinnes of the promise are those that seek after righteousnesse and salvation by faith in Christ and he thus frames the principal Syllogism of the Apostle for confutation of the Jews arguing from the rejection of the Jews Gods failing in his promise If the word of God comprehend only the sonnes of the promise shutting out the sons of the flesh then it follows that the word of God doth not faile though the sons of the flesh be rejected But the word of God comprehends only the sons of promise shutting out the sonnes of the flesh Therefore the word of God doth not faile though the sons of the flesh be rejected Armin. Anal. Cap. 9. ad Ro. p. 781. Let any now judge whether he can interpret this of the Law and not of the promise 3. When he affirmes that to be borne after the flesh is all one with the Apostle with legal justiciaries as he doth which is Arminius his Interpretation how then can he by that distinction of children of the flesh and children of the promise shut out the natural seed of Abraham are the natural seed of Abraham and legal justiciaries one and the same 4. If the Apostle exclude all the natural seed of Abraham from this Covenant of God as Stapleton argues and from him the Anabaptists and takes in only his spiritual seed how can he be reconciled to himself in the words immediately before this objection he speaks of the Jewes as his kinsmen according to the flesh which were the natural seed of Abraham and saith To them pertaine the Adoption the Glory and the Covenants c. How then can his distinction be interpreted to throw them out of Covenant when in expresse termes he had affirmed that they were in covenant How can he deny that these are children vers 7. when he had affirmed that to them pertaineth the Adoption vers 4. Which may be confirmed by abundant other Texts of Scripture Ye are the children of the Lord your God Deut. 14. 1. Out of Egypt have I called my Sonne Hosea 11. 1. It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto Dogges Matth. 15. 26. where all that were not Gentiles all to whom Christ was sent are called children
Ye are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with your Fathers Acts 3. 20. Doth the Covenant appertaine to them and they stiled the children of the Covenant and yet are they out of Covenant Are they children to whom the Adoption pertaines and yet no children When they have given any faire answer to these Quere's especially the two last we shall conceive some probability of truth in their Glosse on the Apostles words in the meane time we cannot but look upon it in full opposition and contradiction to that which the Apostle expressely delivers For the Text of the Apostle it will be besides my purpose to make any full Comment upon it it will be sufficient to take it out of their hands and vindicate it from that which they would assert from it and to let the Reader know the Apostles scope in that place which is not to make a full Comment on those words Gen. 17. 7. but only to free it from an objection which the unbeleeving Jews might raise from it God hath made a Covenant with them to be their God and the God of their seed If he now cast them off as the Apostle doth affirme the Covenant then is broke and the word of God is of none effect The Apostle denies that this follows and shews that the terme Israel or children of Abraham admits of distinction and produces a Scripture vers 7. where one distinction is implied viz. Gen. 21. 12. In Isaac shall thy seed be called and so a numerous company by Ishmael is excluded who were Abrahams seed after the flesh and only the sons of promise by Isaac are accounted the seed vers 8. that come from Isaac borne by miracle And verse 10 11 12 13. seconds it with others concerning the children of Isaac Esau and Jacob. As then there was a distinction of seed so also now one member he had laid down before viz. Israelites according to the flesh vested in all those priviledges there reckoned up ver 4 5. These they pleaded and the Apostle yeelds them And these men according to the discovery of these times deny them The second member he after falls upon the eternally beloved and chosen of God and largely amplifies In these Abrahams seed may continue though the other be cast off to whom yet God hath continued in successive generations a God in covenant and continued to them the priviledges of being his people though now he was upon the rejection of them And that it may appear that I go not alone I shall give an Exposition of this Text from a more able Penne above the suspition of an Arminian which is here charged namely Gomarus who having in his Analysis on that Chapter spoken to the Jews objection and the Apostles answer makes this inference From whence saith he the Apostles conclusion in which he denies that Gods word concerning the Covenant with Abraham and his seed and the blessing and salvation by the promised Messiah Gal. 3. 17. did fall or become void is manifest though the greatest part of the Jews be shut out from Christ and accursed And this he proves by distinguishing Israelites and the seed of Abraham and thereby shews that the promise of God respective to the efficacy of it is indefinite and therefore particular not universal and so an universal promise cannot rightly from thence be concluded for though the Israelites for a great part perish yet that the promise of God is not thereby made void appeares in that it hath its efficacy in the Elect for as he saith verse 6. All which are of Israel borne according to the flesh are not true Israelites to whom not only the tender of the Covenant of Grace with condition of duty to be performed but the heavenly possession and inheritance only belongs as in ver 7. and Rom 2. 28 29. is more fully shewn Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they therefore all children or heirs of that blessing and partakers of the same grace and glory as Rom. 4. 12. Gal. 4. 28. For though these things seem contradictory to themselves and to that also which was delivered before where the Apostle affirmes that the unbeleeving Jews are Abrahamites and Israelites not only by reason of their birth after the flesh but also by reason of acceptance of the Covenants and promises yet there is no contradiction For though the Fathers and Adoption and Covenants and Promises belong to all the Israelites yet all are not therefore true children and heirs of salvation For these things which are objected viz. The Jewes great priviledges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbeleeving Jewes by vertue of their outward call because salvation is revealed and offered to them under condition of obedience and that offer sealed with Circumcision from whence all Israelites are promiscuously called children of the covenant as Acts 3. 25. and not by reason of their inward call according to the purpose of Election effectual because salvation is not only outwardly under condition of a lively faith revealed and offered in the word and sealed in the Sacrament but also inwardly and efficaciously the condition that is faith being given them is conferred by the Holy Ghost For this belongs not indifferently to all but only to the genuine Sonnes and true elect Israelites Thus farre Gomarus in which we have these three things 1. This objection wholly sâ—lved 2. The Apostle reconciled to himself And 3. The Doctrine of Covenant-holinesse from the Apostle fully established which when they have well considered with that which was spoke before having the whole current of Scripture against them they will have little list to make this one Scripture their asylum It is farther said Object that when the Pharisees and Sadduces came to Johns Baptisme and were about to plead this Birth-priviledge John beats them off it and takes that plea out of their mouths Think not to say within your selves we have Abraham to our father Matth. 3. 9. that plea could not stand when the men were carnal I answer First when those that were no better than these make the same plea John 8. 33. We be Abrahams seed and were never in bondage to any Christ yeelds it vers 37. I know that ye are Abrahams seed he allows them all that upon this account they can claime And for Pharisees he doth not barely yeeld them to be Church-Members but also Church-Teachers Matth. 23. 2. 2. I say John Baptist doth not deny what Christ yeelds but lets them know that this plea will not serve to avoid wrath while they live in impenitence They may perish notwithstanding this plea and yet Gods Covenant with Abraham hold being able of stones to raise up children unto Abraham to make good what in Covenant he had said He no where sayes that they are not entitled to priviledges of Ordinances and thereby interessed in the prerogatives of Gods visible people What Paul Rom. 9. 4 5. so largely yeelds
them John Baptist in that place doth not deny them which also now they had in visible possession All sorts of men fare better by priviledge of birth in civil things Prov. 19. 14. House and riches are the inheritance of fathers The Jews fared better respective to Religious things Rom. 3. 1. VVhat advantage then hath the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision Much every way Priviledge of Ordinances in the Church of God is a Birth-inheritance CHAP. XLVIII The Covenant in New Testament-times takes in parents with their children BUt in case all this be yeelded in Old Testament-times that the Covenant entred was in this latitude that the whole of Abrahams seed were taken with him into Covenant and that then it ran in a race by carnal descent yet it is otherwise at least in New Testament-times No childe fares now the better respective to any visible Church-interest for the Faith or Religion of their Ancestours And here is a fourth difference between the first and second the Old and New Covenant according to some The first Covenant was entred in that latitude to take in Children with their parents Posterity with their Ancestours according to the Charter so long infisted upon But in New Testament-times the Covenant reaches no farther then the person that actually enters He covenants for himself his seed have no more or farther interest then the seed of Heathens and Pagans When I first published my Birth-priviledge I here expected opposition and did look that some would appeare to put this limit to the Covenant in New Testament-times but for the state of the Church under the first covenant I thought I should not have found an opposite and therefore was lesse mindful of the confirmation of it which I hope is now done to the Readers full satisfaction As to those that plead such a change of things in New Testament-times we might interrogate them in sundry particulars First when God by free Charter did once vouchsafe such a grant to his people how it can be made appear that it was ever reversed or any such limit put to it when the Church of God hath held it in see from Abraham to this present hour they may well look that they should produce some plaine word from God revoking his grant that challenge them for usurpation It is true that Gods Sovereignty is such that he may contract his grace at pleasure As he may wholly strike a people out of covenant so he may put what termes he pleases to it but such that affirme it should make it appear in which hitherto they have been silent They that will eject us out of so long a possession had need to make their plea firm for our eviction Secondly we might demand the reasons why the Covenant should run in so narrow a limit now being vouchsafed in so great a latitude then being once made of God as with men of yeares so with little ones Deut. 29. Why should little ones be now excluded and onely men of growth admitted when it is granted on all hands that God continues a people to himself how comes it to passe that he admits them on such new termes That his favours are now thus shortened that as a lease for terme of life differs from a fee-simple for inheritance so the Covenant in New Testament-times differs from the Covenant vouchsafed of God to our fathers Where the absurdity lies that Baptisme should be administred to those that do not actually beleeve when yet Circumcision was administred to infants in as great an incapacity Thirdly we might demand how they can avoid that great scandall that must needs by this meanes be given to the beleeving Jewes who waved the old way of the administration of the covenant and embraced the new to have their infants upon this new admission struck out of Covenant A man that should be seized on an inheritance for ever will hardly be brought to quit that tenure and accept with limit for terme of life God was their God and the God of their seed Gen. 17. 7. They did bring forth children to God Ezek. 16. 20. Now they bring forth children without God They have a seed but no holy seed a world replenished but not a Church or people to God continued The savage Indians in a married condition have this priviledge that their issue are not bastards and this is all that can be claimed by Christians Fourthly we might demand if so great a change were made and held in the Apostolique Primitive times how it comes to passe that there was such silence no man moving a question about it The pomp of worship and observation of places formerly in use was laid aside in Gospel-times but this we hear of and the reason of it John 4. 22. The initiating Sacrament of Circumcision had a period put to it of this we hear and many complaints about it Psalteries Harps Organs Cymbals and such instruments of musick in use in the time of the Law were laid aside in Gospel-times and not known in the westerne Churches till after Thomas Aquinas his dayes As this was done so it was not past in silence but spoken of as elsewhere I have shewn and given reasons of it by Justin Martyr or at least one that beares his name Chrysostome Isidore Thomas Aquinas When none of these changes can passe but observation is made it is more then strange that so great a change as this in the termes of the Covenant between God and his people can be so carried on without any observation at all or one word once moved about it or spoken in it See Master Baxters Treatise of Infants Church-membership proving that Infants were sometimes Church-members page 26 27. that there is no repeale of this grant vouchsafed of God p. 27 28. Waiting for some faire answer to the former demands I shall proceed to those texts of Scripture where the Covenant in New Testament-times is held out in this latitude to beleevers and their seed comprizing their parents in the same priviledge of Covenant and participation of promise First let us look into those words of Peter delivered in his first Sermon after the receiving of the holy Ghost the first place in which the Covenant of promise and Baptisme the Seale of the Covenant are mentioned to the Jewes with whom the Apostles as yet held communion being not actually rejected out of a visible Church-state Repent and be baptised every one of you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sinnes and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are afarre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Acts 2. 38 39. In which words we may observe 1. An Exhortation as to repentance for the guilt of the blood of Christ of which they stood convinced so also unto Baptisme 2. A Motive stirring them up to embrace baptisme in the
name of Christ drawn from the benefit which they shall reap Ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost 3. A farther encouragement to the acceptation of Baptism drawn from their Covenant-priviledge which is here set out in its full latitude and extent as Calvin rightly upon the words observeth 1. â—o the Jewes For the promise is unto you 2. To their children and to your children 3. To the Gentiles upon call and to you that are afarre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Where an effectual call cannot be meant which the Apostle calls a call according to purpose proper only to the elect It is a call unto such a Church-state as the whole Nation of the Jews did then enjoy as the first-borne in the family A call that puts them into a like Church-state and condition with the Jews From whence this argument may be drawn Those to whom the Covenant of promise appertaines have a right to Baptisme But the covenant of promise appertaines to men in a Church-state and condition and to their children The major cannot be denied by any that will not make themselves the Apostles opposites The minor proposition is now to be considered That the covenant of promise to men in a Church-state and condition is in that latitude as to comprize their children For which the words of the Apostle are full and clear To you is the promise made and to your children on which Calvin rightly comments Peter observes saith he a due order when he assigns the first place of honour to the Jewes That it takes in children it depends on the words of the promise Gen. 17. 7. I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Where God joynes children with their parents in the priviledge of adoption in the inheritance of priviledges belonging to all Church-members But this clear text wants not wits that study to cloud it Objections answered Some except against the word children and will have them to be the same as the sons and daughters mentioned v. 17. of that chapter from Joel chap. 2. 28. and consequently the promise to be meant of the Spirit of prophecie and to appertaine to none but those of age and capacity for prophecie To this I answer 1. The extraordinary gifts of the holy Ghost in this visible way cannot be the promise here by Saint Peter mentioned seeing it is enlarged to all that are afarre off even to as many as the Lord shall call But all these have not the holy Ghost in that way extraordinary nor any promise of it Baptisme with the holy Ghost and with fire is a baptisme proper to those primitive Saints wherewith they were told that they should be baptized not many dayes after 2 Howsoever the promise be interpreted so as to belong to all that are beleevers and call on the name of the Lord as there followes yet that promise is on condition of their baptisme The meanes are to be used in reference to the end Baptisme is the meanes receiving of the holy Ghost there specified is the end And the Apostle confirming them in the promise of the end doth likewise encourage them to the use of the meanes in Baptisme to expect the gift of the Spirit and so according to this interpretation that place is an encouragement to baptisme The promise is the fittest encouragement to the Signe and Seale of the promise Baptisme is the Signe and Seale to which they are here encouraged and in that latitude as they had formerly known the command of Circumcision 3. Neither are the children here mentioned the same with sonnes and daughters spoken of by the Prophet nor limitted to such sonnes and daughters as are of growth and capable of the gift of prophesie 1. The Apostle urgeth the promise in the way as in the Scripture it is delivered which is to men and their posterity to them and theirs So God promises to be a God in covenant to his and their seed and this the Apostle holds out to draw them on to the Seale of the covenant to accept Baptisme on the same terms that Abraham did circumcision 2. It is without reason to beleeve that the Apostle should instance in one peece of the distribution of the Prophet there and to leave out the rest to put in alone sons and daughters when we have in the Text young men old men servants and handmaids 3. Children here are mentioned under a promise to the parents to you and your children is the promise made but not so in Joel nor in the quotation of the Apostle That Scripture hath only an enumeration of the several sorts and conditions of people in any Nation on all which the spirit is promised without any reference made to the parents of those sonnes and daughters more then to the masters of those servants and handmaids not the sonnes and daughters of their flesh but the sonnes and daughters of the Nation A Language usual in our ordinary expressions speaking of men of any sort or condition as your Lawyers your Merchants c. so here your sonnes your daughters your old men your young men c Others say That the promise made is the sending of Jesus Christ and blessing by him as is expounded Acts 3. 25 26. Act 13. 32. Ro. 15. 39. I answer it is true that Jesus Christ is the most eminent mercy promised and may be called the promise virtualiter being the ground of all promises and therefore some interpreters have mentioned the gift of Christ on this occasion But it is plaine that Gods Covenant and this gift are to be distinguished Christ is promised in priority to the Jew before the Gentile The Jew then is taken into Covenant before this gift of Christ can be of them expected It is therefore the Covenant it self entered with parent and child root and branch that is here meant as Calvin in the words before observes from which the giving of Christ in the flesh follows And therefore Diodati fully pitches upon the true sense of it Seeing as you are Abrahams children you are within the Covenant you ought to acknowledge Christ to be the head and fountaine of the Covenant The Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is here meant which from Abraham had been the Jewes priviledge Rom. 9. It is farther said that the limitation as many as the Lord our God shall call shewes that the promise belongs to them not simply as Jewes but as called of God which is more expressely affirmed Acts 3. 26. To you first God having raised up his Sonne Jesus sent him to blesse you in turning away every one of you from his iniquities I wonder how it came into any mans head to call this amplification a limitation it plainly enough speaks their boldnesse in dealing with the Scriptures Had the Apostle said To you is the promise made and to your seed in case God shall give you a call he had spoke to their purpose but
saying To you and to as many as the Lord your God shall call it plainly shewes that he does not limit but amplifie the mercy extending it not barely to the Jewes who in present by reason of fruition of Ordinances were a people near to the Lord Psal 148. 14. but also to the Gentiles who Ephes 2. 17. we affare off 2. In that he saith this promise belongs to them not simply as Jewes but as called is a full contradiction A Jew uncalled at this time before the Kingdome was taken from them is as much as a Convert unconverted or a Gentile disciple undiscipled In case they think to come off by limitting it to an effectual call the Scriptures by themselves quoted doth evidently contradict it Christ came to give them that effectual calling and not onely to those that were thus called It is yet said Peter doth exhort to repentance and Baptisme together and in the first place perswades to repentance then to Baptisme which shews repentance to be in order before baptisme To which I answer that these who had crucified Christ as a blasphemer a seditious person an impostour must needs repent before they would accept Baptisme in his name or hope for remission of sinne by him I had been lost labour for the Apostle to have pressed those that had crucified Christ and retained their former opinion of him to become disciples to him and to look to be saved by him To perswade them to look for remission of sinnes in his blood who took themselves to be without sinne in shedding of it Yet notwithstanding this guilt of which the Apostle would have them to repent he shews that they and their seed are under the promise of God and puts them into a way in acceptation of Christ in the Gospel-tender in his present way of administration to be continued his people still in covenant and that as is plainly enough signified that they might enjoy it in their former latitude to them and to their children The promise of which they were not yet dispossest but stood as a people of God in visible Covenant and their children is here brought as a motive to encourage them to hold correspondency with God as his covenant-people embracing the way which their long expected and desired Messiah had now instituted appointed But this promise was to them and their children Here is yet another evasion The text speaks not expressely of Infants but of children indefinitely And if infants be not children we will be content that they be cast out of covenant and will hold no more plea for their Church-membership nor Baptisme God in the Covenant with Abraham did not expressely mention infants but seed yet infants were his seed and as his seed by Gods command to be circumcised And all our infants are our children and consequently to be baptized Acts 20. 7. is an expresse Text with some of this party without any help of consequence to prove that women received the Lords Supper Because it is said that disciples came together to break bread as though woman and disciple were synonyma But here the promise being made to children infants must neither be comprized in the letter nor yet by any favour of consequence included It is further objected that the text speaks not of the children of the Gentiles at all of whom we are but of the children of the Jews and therefore if that promise be extended to infants which doth not appear the promise is to be expounded so as to note something peculiar to the Jews infants If the Gospel held out any such transcending priviledges appertaining to the seed of the Jews above the Gentiles they may do well to produce a Text for it otherwise we shall take it for granted from Saint Paul that there is none at all that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew Circumcision nor uncircumcision Barbarian nor Scythian bond nor free And when the Apostle addes To those that are afarre off even as many as the Lord shall call he plainly meanes the Gentiles as appears comparing Ephes 2. 13. and though I take not the boldnesse to adde to the words as some stand charged yet it is cleare that he same is understood there in reference to the children of the Gentiles that is exprest before to the children of the Jewes If any shall grant an inheritance to Titius and his heires for ever and to Caius every one will understand that the heires of Caius are meant as well as the heirs of Titius especially if it can be proved out of the Grant it self that the priviledges conveyed to Caius are as ample as that to Titius We can prove the priviledges granted to the Gentiles in the Gospel to be equal to those granted to the Jews when the Jews children then are under the promise with their parents the children of beleeving Gentiles cannot be excluded CHAP. XLIX Rom. 11. 16. Vindicated SECT I. The Series of the Apostles dispute opened and several Arguments deduced THe next Scripture for proof of the Covenant in New Testament-times takes in children with the parents is Rom. 11. 16. For if the first fruits be holy the lump is also holy and if the root be holy so are the branches which Scripture that it may be aright understood we must look into the whole Series of the Apostles dispute in that place Having before largely discoursed of the rejection of the Jewes out of a present Church-state and fellowship with the call of the Gentiles and their present Adoption now somewhat to allay the seeming harshnesse of that doctrine of his against the Jewes and to take down the insultings of the Gentiles over that people in this chapter he speaks to both 1. To the Jews by way of mitigation limiting this doctrine of their rejection with a double caution 1. That it was not total 2. That it was not final That it was not total he first asserts secondly proves asserts ver 1. I say then hath God cast away his people God forbid Proves by a threefold argument 1. By instance in himself verse 1. For I am also an Israelite of the seed of Abraham of the Tribe of Benjamin and he doth not dispute for his own rejection 2. By instance in the elect of God verse 2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew 3. From a parallel Scripture out of 1 King 18. which parallel he first lays down verse 2 3 4 Wâ—t ye not what the Scripture saith of Elias how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying Lord they have killed thy Prophets and digged down thy Altars And I am left alone and they seek my life But what saith the answer of God unto him I have reserved to my selfe seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the Image of Baal And afterward applies verse 5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace And so falls into a digression
dwells in us by Faith so we in Christ Ephes 3. 17. 2. All ingraffing is into that which gives sap and juice to the ingraffed as the stock from the root to the syens Now Christ gives sap to the Elect beleeving not the Church and therefore it is not into the Church but into Christ 3. If saving faith ingraffe the branch into the Church invisible then the Church invisible is the proper object of such Faith but the Church is no such object of Faith but Christ 4. That supposed ingraffing into the invisible Church is either known to the body invisible or unwitting if know then it is no invisible They have no light to discerne an invisible work if unknown then there could not be such a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles nor complaint of breaking off of the Jewes all being done by an invisible translation and so the subject of the question is taken away To dispute whether ingraffing into the Church be into the Church-visible or invisible is to dispute whether the Mount of Olives be a Mountaine of Earth or Aire I shall assoon finde a Mountaine of Aire in Geography as this ingraffing into the invisible Church in Divinity And here I tie not any up to the word which I conceive in reference to any Ecclesiastical or Spiritual station is not elsewhere used in Scripture but to the thing All that accesse to the Church from Gentile Nations which is so large fore-prophesied in the Old Testament and Historically related in the Acts of the Apostles was an ingraffing into the Church visible and this ingraffing here mentioned The visible Church did immediately receive these new branches and so the whole body of Jews and Gentiles professedly beleeving Ephes 2. 15. became one new man The visible Church communicates sap and juice which is the fatnesse of the Olive in Ordinances This is known by the Church visible they were sensible of and full of praises for the new addition to this number Argument 4. Fourthly That ingraffing is meant verse 17. whereby the wilde Olive is co-partaker of the root and fatnesse of the Olive-tree as is asserted there But such is only Election and giving of Faith Ergo. The minor I prove by considering who the root is and what the fatness of the Olive-tree is 1. Negatively the root is not every beleeving parent Answ I suppose I may answer for my self that I never said that every beleeving parent is the root I willingly yeeld that every beleeving parent is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the root but I affirm that every beleeving parent is a root I cannot reach this mystery that Abraham can be a root of all the branches in Israel reaching down to the Apostles times no intermediate rootes intervening no more then Adam can be a natural root of mankinde to this time without intermediate fathers of our flesh deriving us from him as Jacob with Rachel and Leah was a root from whom Israel sprang as branches of an Olive so Judah and Tamar Boaz and Ruth were roots likewise They built up the house of Israel Ruth 4. 11 12. The house of Israel was this Olive-tree these several Metaphors expressing the same thing the building of the house and bringing out the branches are one and the same All builders are roots these are builders therefore roots Abraham may be called the builder laying the first foundation so the root from whence every branch was derived yet every particular Beleever that had issue a builder a root Those Israelites that had no holinesse of inhesion but only of relation that were members of the Church visible not invisible were fathers by way of communication of this holinesse 1 Cor. 10. 1. All our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea It is as necessary to have intermediate fathers between us and Abraham as to have intermediate mothers between us and Eue. Eve may as well be the mother of all living and no other mother between us and her as Abraham can be the father of the Faithful and no intermediate father to derive from him and communicate to us But his proof is very well worth the hearing that every beleeving parent is not the root For then all the branches should be natural the childe of every beleeving Parent is a natural branch from his father But here Apostle makes the Gentiles branches and a wild Olive graffed in besides nature and the Jews only natural branches growing from the root verse 21 24. The Apostle makes them wilde onely at their first ingraffing and so was all Terahs race wilde likewise till that change of Faith wrought in Abrahams call and the covenant of God entered with him We now are natural as they were and cannot be called wilde but in our first Original Positively he sayes the root is no other then Abraham that Abraham onely is a holy root or at most Abraham Isaac and Jacob. If this have any face of Argument it runnes thus If Abraham be the root and not every beleeving Parent then the ingraffing is by Election and Faith that justifies The truth is the sequel is undeniable on the contrary If Abraham be the root then the ingraffing is not into the invisible Church which he strangely calls by Election but onely into the visible This Master Blakwood saw and faine would have maintained that Christ is the root for ingraffing into Christ and not into Abraham makes a member of the Church invisible If the ingraffing be by a saving Faith only to derive saving Graces personally inherent as a fruit of Election from Abraham then it must needs be that we are Elect in Abraham Abraham may say Without me ye can do nothing and he that beleeveth in me out of his belly shall flow forth rivers of living water and we may say The life that we live in the flesh we live by faith in the sonne of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham be the root not only respective to a conditional Covenant but to the grace under condition covenanted It had been more safe for our Authour with Master Blackwood though in contradiction to himself to have made Christ the root when these consequences must follow To which he answers If I made Abraham a root as communicating Faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ this would follow But I make Abraham a root as he is called the father of all them that beleeve Rom. 4. 11. Not by begetting Faith in them but as an exemplâ—ry cause of beleeving as I gather from the expression verse 12. That he is a father to them that walk in the steps of our father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised A root not by communication but example an ingraffing not to have any thing communicated from the root but to imitate it is such a Catacresis as may well make all Rhetorick ashamed of it and if the Sun ever saw a more notable piece of nonâ—sense I am to seek what sense is A
the flesh their former dignity and consequently their future recovery unto the state from whence they were fallen in which the Gentile-Nations by discipling do succed let us go no farther for determination of the question then the preceding verse As concerning the Gospel they are enemies for your sakes but as touching the Election they are beloved for the Fathers sake Here is to be enquired 1. Who were enemies concerning the Gospel 2. Who the Fathers are for whose sake they are beloved 3. What this election is and then we shall soone see who are beloved for the Fathers sake For the first It is not the spiritual seed that were as concerning the Gospel enemies that is the highest of contradictions but as Diodate sayes the Jewes who at present time were alienate from God by reason of rebellion against the Gospel which only can unite souls to him Enemies against the Gospel are enemies against God which cannot be understood of spiritual Israel The fathers for whose sake they are beloved are the ancient fathers from whom after the flesh they did proceed especially Abraham Isaac and Jacob. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prepter patres for the fathers Then Election must needs be as Paraeus upon the words Diodate and Ravanellus in verbum Electio observe understood of an external grace of the Covenant whereby God chose this Nation to himself according to that of Moses Deut. 7. 6. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself above all people that are upon the face of the earth unlesse we are elect in Abraham to salvation and not in Christ And Abraham Isaac and Jacob are our Mediatours reconciliation and when the Apostle saith We are accepted in the beloved Ephes 1. 6. it is to be understood of acceptation in Abraham and we are to conclude our prayers not in and through Christ but Abraham Isaac and Jacob we are not for their sakes beloved to salvation Paraeus indeed makes the grace of eternal Election to be secondarily here understood which God saith he deposited in that Nation for adopting them into Covenant he makes it evident saith he that he hath many of that Nation and ever shall have that are Elect unto salvation But this is not the Election here mentioned but only an adjunct of it and now of it self it will follow that these beloved for Abraham Isaac and Jacob are the children of their flesh Because saith Paraeus God loved the Fathers the love extends it self to the children for if among men friendship with parents be divolved to Children why should it not be so with God likewise I desire that it may be considered for whom Moses interceded when he prayed Remember Abraham Isaac and Israel thy servants to whom thou swarest by thy own selfe and saidest unto them I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed and they shall inherit it for ever Exod. 32. 13. Was it not the whole body of Israel And for whom is it that God promises to remember his Covenant with Jacob and also his Covenant with Isaac and also his Covenant with Abraham Levit. 26. 42. Was it not the whole Nation under suffering as there is exprest I will remember the land Either then Paul and Moses erre together with the list of Authours here mentioned or else the love election calling in this place is into a Church state and condition Argument 8. Eighthly If the ingraffing both of Jews and Gentiles be the fruit of Gods mercy the breaking off by shutting up in unbelief then the ingraffing is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith But the former is true verse 30 31 32. Ergo the latter Answ The priviledge of a Church-state which the Jewes once had and againe shall have is a mercy as may be seene Hosea 1. 6 9. Our Author addes What shall I say more It is so plain from the whole scope and tenour of the Apostles words that the ingraffing there spoken of is into the invisible Church by election and giving faith that from the first of the chapter to verse 13. there is scarce a verse but speaks of rejecting foreknowing election grace hardening giving a Spirit of slumber darkening the eyes stumbling falling or some equipollent terme to these and the Apostle doth plainly signifie his intention in all that discourse to be the shewing the mystery of Gods counsel in electing reprobating blinding conuerting one while the Jews another while the Gentiles so that I cannot but admire that Mr. Marshal should interpret the ingraffing of bare admission into visible Church-membership Answ 1. I would willingly learne what ingraffing by Election is I take Election to be an immanent act in God which is terminated in himself and not on the creature such expressions do not suit with so high pretendings to scholastical learning as every where may be seen in this Authour 2. I would have this Argument made up by taking in the assumption which can be no other then this But the Jewes in their fall from Church-fellowship cannot be said to be rejected hardened given to a spirit of slumber or that their eyes are darkened or that they have stumbled neither Election or Grace should have any hand in their Church-fellowship This must be the reasoning if there be any shew of reason in this heap of words and then all may well admire while he is in his admiration of others I say no more but that he is very weak both in Divinity and Logick that cannot presently upon the first sight discover the weaknesse and return a satisfying answer to this flourish of words Argument 9. Parallel places as is said must be understood of implanting into the invisible Church as Ephes 3. 6. 1 Cor. 12. 13. Gal. 3. 14 26 28 29. Answ Master Hudson page 132. hath not onely affirmed but proved that the Text 1 Cor. 12. 13. is meant of the Church as visible to whom I referre the Reader He places his greatest confidence in the first as he professes and thus enlarges upon it Now sure the Gentiles were made fellow-heires of the same body and co-partakers of the promise of God in the Gospel not by an outward Ordinance but by giving of faith according to Election Ergo the ingraffing Rom. 11. 17. parallel to it is not by an outward Ordinance but by giving Faith according to Election To this I onely say O that this were truth Then as the Apostle saith of Israel at their restauration all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11. 26. so we may say all England in statu quo shall be saved in the sense that he would understand salvation Whether we be by descent Britaines Saxons or Normans we are gentiles and consequently by his Divinity partakers of the Gospel by Fatih according to Election But it is too clear that
Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it If they will subscribe to that part That the grounds reasons and causes of the necessity of infant-Baptisme are contained in Scriptures then I will subscribe to the other that those words infants ought to be baptized are not the Scripture Then Doctor Prideaux is brought in who sayes Paedobaptisme rests on no other divine right then Episcopacy but we are not told whether Doctor Prideaux goes about to bring down infant-Baptism to unwritten Tradition or to bring up Episcopacy to divine right according to Scripture And out of these Premisses this conclusion is inferred that the Ancients and learned afore Zuinglius did account infant-Baptisme to have been an unwritten tradition having reason from Scripture not evident of it self but to be received from the determination of the Church Which for ought that I can discerne is thus gathered some Papists to set up unwritten traditions have in contradiction to themselves fastened infant-Baptisme upon it of which onely one lived before Zuinglius Some Protestant Writers every one of them living after Zuinglius speak not one word to the purpose Ergo the learned before Zuinglius did account infant-Baptisme to be an unwritten tradition Me thinks the Scripture-Arguments which may be found in Authors far above Zuinglius his standing as in Aquinas 3. part quaest 68. art 9. August de Baptis contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 24. with others might with more strength conclude that they rested on a written foundation and were not satisfied with unwritten tradition CHAP. LVI The reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seale asserted THe several minor propositions in the syllogismes before laid down being proved at large in the foregoing discourse So that nothing more needs to be added yet if there be no necessary connexion between the covenant and the seale the major propositions will yet be called into question Though it be granted that infants be Church-members are in covenant have the promises are Saints are in the bosome of the Church by birth-priviledge are children of the Kingdome c. Yet it will be said though most unreasonably that they are not yet to be baptized I shall therefore 1. Bring Scripture proofes for the real connexion between the covenant and the seale clearing those Scriptures from exceptions taken against them 2. I shall make it good with arguments or reasons 3. I shall returne answer to objections brought against that which is here asserted That all in covenant are to enjoy the initial seal of the covenant let the words of God himself in the institution of circumcision be considered Gen. 17. 7 9 10 11 14. 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 to thy seed after thee Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee Every man-child among you shall be circumcised and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskinne and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people Here we see 1. A covenant entered 2. A seal appointed as the Apostle Rom. 4. 11. calls it 3. The necessary connexion between the seal and covenant declared They are to be circumcised because they are in covenant Having interest in the covenant They have together with it interest in the initial seal against this is objected First All the force of this proof hangs on the particle therefore verse 9. and may be rendared And thou or but thou as well as thou therefore and is by others rendered Tu autem and Tu vero which are neither of them illative termes 1. We have no reason but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative and being an illative particle he hath no exception against the strength of it 2. I deny that all the force of the proof hangs on that particle look farther on into verse 10. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-childe among you shall be circumcised and take in with it Acts 7. 8. And he gave him the covenant of circumcision And so Abraham begat Isaac and circumcised him the eighth day c. and let them at more leisure finde an answer to this argument That which God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it But God calls circumcision by the name of a covenant Ergo they ought not to be separated 2. Let them consider the relation in which the Apostle puts this Sacrament of circumcision to the covenant Rom. 4. 11. An instituted appointed signe and seale is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seales circumcision was an instituted appointed signe and seale of the covenant therefore it is not to be divided from it Secondly it is said If it were granted that therefore is the best reading yet that the inference verse 9. should be made from the Promise only verse 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee and not as well if not rather from the Promise verse 8. of giving to him and his seed the land of Canaan I finde no sufficient reason given This reference engages the adversary 1. In a contradiction to himself who sayes elsewhere the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the signe of circumcision He also contends that it was a mixt covenant made up of spiritual and temporal mercies and then it must take in the spiritual as well as the temporal Promise All that know the nature of covenants and use of Seales know that the Seale ratifies all that the covenant containes But the covenant according to him contained not barely the promise of the land of Canaan and therefore the reference must carry it farther than the land of Canaan 2. It engages him in a contradiction to the Apostle who makes circumcision a signe and seale not alone of the land of Canaan but of the righteousnesse of faith Thirdly It is said But if it were yielded that the inference were made peculiarly from the Promise verse 7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed it must be proved that every Believers Infant childe is Abrahams seed afore it be proved that the Promise belongs to them It must either be proved that they are Abrahams children or have the priviledge of the Children of Abraham which from Genesis 9. 27. Rom. 11. 17. is sufficiently proved especially being confirmed by those Texts that carry the covenant in Gospel-times to the issue And for his exception that the covenant was not made to every childe of Abraham though it were true yet it would not serve his purpose provided that we in Gospel-times
regard of persons for Themselves Posterity For themselves it is much to be able with the Psalmist to say Thou art he that took me out of the wombe Thou didst make me to hope when I was upon my mothers breasts I was cast upon thee from the wombe thou art my God from my mothers belly Psal 22. 9 10. This puts upon confidence in prayer as an argument drawn from long continued acquaintance as there follows Be not farre from me for trouble is neer Ver. 11. Such have timely knowledge of God sucking in somewhat of him while they suck milk from the brests An expression of height setting out this birth-happiness that hath sure more in it then can be applied to sinners of the Gentiles see how the Psalmist yet farther pleads it with God O Lord truely I am thy servant I am thy servant and the son of thy hand-maid Psal 116. 16. an allusion to the law of servants who were the inheritance of the Master in whose house they were Exod. 21. 4. Levit. 25. 16. I am such saith the Psalmist thy servant thy servant with all earnestneâ—â— of affection I am of thine inheritance I am one of those that are thy house-borne-servants my mother was thy hand-maid I have therefore this relation to plead and this he pleads again and again in the same words Psal 86. 16. This great priviledge Isaiah in like manner takes notice of Isa 49. 1. The Lord hath called me from the wombe from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name The Apostle mindes the Ephesians of their former condition and will have them to remember the time past when they were without Christ being aliens from the Common-Wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise having no hope without God in the world But there never was a time in which men of this birth-priviledge were in that condition these are Gods heritage from the wombe and with Timothy some in greater some in lesse measure from children have the knowledge of the Scriptures if not with John Baptist full of the Holy Ghost from the wombe Luke 1. 15. which yet doubtlesse is the happinesse not of few who are eminent in sanctification whose growth in grace is seen and yet the beginnings not known Howsoever it is with them for personal qualifications yet they are nigh when others are afarre off Ephes 2. 13. at the pools brim waiting the Angels moving of the water John 5. 3. Salvation is of the Jewes saith our Saviour John 4. 22. Saving Ordinances are their inheritance They are happily seated under that joyful sound which is able to save the soul Jam. 1. 21. Salvation is of his house who is the sonne of Abraham Luke 19. 9. As it is full of consolation to Beleevers in respect of themselves so also in reference to their posterity their children are Gods children they being the Lords inheritance their children are his heritage in like manner they bring â—orth children to God and he ownes and challenges their seed as his Ezek 16. 20. An infinite love in God an unspeakable comfort to a perent when the Infant who by corruption of nature is in Satans jawes and in no lesse danger of hell than Moses sometimes was of the water and not so much as sensible of his condition God pleases in this sad state to look upon him and to make it the time of love finding out wayes for his freedome What the Apostle speaks from the Prophet Rom. 10. 10. of Gods care of the Gentiles is certainly true being applied to infants I was found of them that sought me not and made manifest to them that enquired not after me Had we that hopelesse opinion of our children as Papists have of theirs that die without Baptisme what a wretched case were it with David to part with an infant out of the world How could such mourne in any other way than as those that are without hope parting with an infant without any part in Christ and in no better posture towards God than the seed of the sinners of the Gentiles doomed both by the Psalmist and the Prophet Jeremy Psalm 79. 6. Jerem. 10. 25. Pour out thy wrath on the heathen that have not known thee and upon the families that call not upon thy name they might with Rachel weep for their children and refuse to be comforted because for eternity they are not But we finde God more rich in mercy entring covenant with his and their seed Christ himselfe imbracing them in their infancy and taking them into his special love as those that bear his name and though death should prevent their Baptisme whereby they have an actual interest in visible Church-priviledges yet he that hath appointed Ordinances is not tied to them but where he hath entered covenant can save without them Bellarmine confesseth that the desire of Baptisme in one that is in the number of the Catechumoni instructed in the principles of Christ and not baptized doth save though the text John 3. 5. so much urged by that party against the salvation of infants understood with their Comment be in the letter against it why then should not that grace which would shew it selfe in like desires when the person is of capacity qualifie for salvation in like manner Finding this love in God these bowels in Christ we may safely conclude that children have blisse parents have comfort parents and children have their interest in Church-Ordinances and Administrations And let God have the glory FINIS AN ALPHABETICAL Table Relating to the chief Heads handled in this Treatise A Abraham CIrcumcision was not a Seale of Faith peculiar to him pag. 239. Arguments evincing it ibid. All his seed were not in Covenant but his seed by Promise only pag. 298 He was not taken into Covenant as a natural Father but as a natural Father accepting Gods tender pag. 299 His seed is entitled to saving mercies on Gods termes ibid. His houshold-members out of Covenant not circumcised page 425 See Circumcision Root Actions Immanent and transient pag. 132 See Justification Adam Was in Covenant with God pag. 9 His integrity was connatural pag. 103 Stood not in need of a Mediatour p. 91 In what sense imperfect ibid. In case he had stood whether he had been translated out of Paradise into Heaven p. 100 He might have gone quick to Hell if Christ had not been promised p. 102 See Covenant Adoption Adoptive-right to Baptisme questioned p. 454 Angels In Covenant with God p. 7 Needed not a Mediatour p. 91 In what sense their obedience was imperfect ibid. Antiquity For Infant-Baptisme cleared p. 416 Apostasie Total and partial p. 453 Assembly Of Divines vindicated p. 406 Assurance Is to be gathered from the conditions of the Covenant p. 195 See Spirit B. Baptisme SIgnifies not barely dipping but every way of washing It is the door for admission into the Church visible p. 275 Pharisees not denied it seeking but being tendered rejected
with the Covenant page 267 Chap. 42. A man in Covenant with God and recieved into the universal Church visible needs no more to give him accesse to and interest in particular visible Churches page 270 Chap. 43. A dogmatical faith entitles to Baptisme page 289 Chap. 44. Impenitence and unbelief in professed Christians is a breach of Covenant page 294 Chap. 45. The question stated concerning the birth-priviledge of the issue of beleevers page 295 Chap. 46. Arguments concluding the natural issue of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be taken into Covenant page 301 Chap. 47. Rom. Chap. 9. Verse 6 7 8 vindicated page 309 Chap. 48. The Covenant in New Testament times takes in parents with their children page 316 Chap. 49. Rom. 11. 16. vindicated page 323 Chap. 50. Arguments from a late hand for ingraffing into the Church invisible and breaking off from it answered page 330 Chap. 51. 1 Corinth 7. 14. vindicated page 349 Chap. 52. Galat. 4. 29. vindicated page 366 Chap. 53. Mat. 19. 14 Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. vindicated page 393 Chap. 54. Reasons evincing the birth-priviledge and covenant-holinesse of Believers and their issue page 401 Chap. 55. A Corollary for Infant-Baptisme Infant-baptisme by arguments asserted page 410 Chap. 56. The reality of connexion between the Cavenant and initial seal asserted page 422 Chap. 57. The with-holding Infants of Christian parents from baptisme is the sin of Sacriledge page 437 Chap. 58. The children of all that are Christians in profession are by vertue of Covenant-interest to be recieved into the Church by baptisme page 448 Chap. 59. A defence of the former Doctrine respective to the latitude of Infant-Baptisme 468 page 458 Chap. 60. The application of the whole in several inferences page 478 A TREATISE OF THE Covenant OF WORKS AND OF THE Covenant OF GRACE CHAP. I. An Introduction into the whole I Shall not make it my businesse for an Introduction into this Work to enquire after the derivation of the word Etymologies are known to be no definitions The denomination being usually given from some adjuncts variable according to times places and not from any thing that is of the essence of that which is enquired after in which those are highest in Criticismes in giving their judgements of them can yet ordinarily go no higher then conjecture The common acception of the word in Scripture is that which will give the greatest light in finding out the nature of Scripture covenants which as most other words is variously used Sometimes is used Properly implying a covenant in deed and truth strictly so called and containing all the requisites of a Covenant in it Sometimes Tropically for that which contains some parts and adjuncts of a covenant and so carries some resemblance to and stands in some affinity with it This Tropical figurative and the native proper sense must be carefully distinguished and may by no meanes be confounded by those that will understand the true nature of a covenant and avoid those manifold mistakes into which some upon this a lone account have been carried The figurative acceptions of the word are diverse sometimes the homage required or duty covenanted for is called a covenant by way of Synechdoche seeing a covenant between a Superiour and Inferiour doth comprize it so Jerem. 34. 13. I made a Covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them out of the Land of Egypt which Covenant is no other then the Law that he gave them Exod. 21. 2. Sometimes the promise annext is called by the name of a covenant by a like Synechdoche Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee Gen. 9. 11. Sometimes the Seal is called by the name of a Covenant by way of Metonymy of the adjunct serving to ratifie and confirme a covenant Gen. 17. 10. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-childe among you shall be circumcised Sometimes Christ the Mediatour of the covenant is called by a like figure the covenant Isa 42. 6 7. I will give thee for a covenant of the people and light unto the Gentiles Sometimes the Lord Christs undertaking to work the graces covenanted for in the hearts of his people in the way of his power exerted in the conversion of sinners is called by the name of a covenant Jerem. 31. 33. This is the covenant that I will make with the whole house of Israel after those dayes saith the Lord I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts of which more in its own place Sometimes a covenant is taken for that peace which usually followes upon covenants Job 5. 23. Thou shalt be in league with the stones of the field and the beasts of the field shall be at peace with thee Hos 2. 18. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the fowles of heaven and with the creeping things of the ground and I will break the bowe and the sword and the battel out of the earth and will make them to lie down safely When yet neither a Law nor a Promise nor Seal annext nor yet the Mediatour or any undertaking of his can be a covenant properly so called A Law from God with a Promise annext assented to by man is a covenant and when a Seal is added there is a condescension to our weaknesse for the more abundant ratification and confirmation of Gods stability in his Promises In our enquiry after such covenants which God in his gracious condescension is pleased to enter with man the general nature of a covenant must be held every species must partake of its Genus We must not make Gods covenant with man so farre to differ from covenants between man and man as to make it no covenant at all we must also observe that which differences it from covenants meerly humane that covenants divine and humane be not confounded together In order to which we must know that in every covenant properly so called these requisites must concur First it must not be of one alone but at least of two parties one can make no bargain or agreement Secondly there must be a mutual consent of these parties When Nahash the Ammonite offered to make a Covenant with Israel on condition that he might thrust out all their right eyes 1 Sam. 11. 2. the Israelites refusing and running the hazard of a fight rather then undergo it here was no covenant Thirdly each party must engage themselves one to another for performance of somewhat covenanted for whether debt duty or promise When Abraham agreed with the Hittites for a burial place for foure hundred Shekels Gen. 23. 15 16. There was a covenant properly so called having apparently in it all requisites of a covenant So also in
know not their Election it is not as yet made sure by them So that as to us it is without any determinate object None can say my interest is in this Promise These were delivered to the whole body of Israel when not one in many did reap the benefit of them Mr. Baxter therefore makes them Prophecies De eventu Prophecies of what shall happen I suppose they may be fitly called the declaration or indication of Gods work in the conditions to which he engages and of the necessary concurrence of the power of his grace in that which he requires As Austin and others have interpreted that which is affirmed of our Saviour That he is the true light which enlightneth every man that comes into the world John 1. 9. not to be so understood that all in the world are enlightned by him for many are in darknesse but that all that are enlightned have light by his light explaining it with this similitude Such a Schoolmaster teacheth all the children in a Town that is all that are taught he teacheth Some go to no School at all so these Promises I will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed All of their seed that are circumcised in heart he circumcises and so in all the other none of all these are done without his special work This was little heeded by the generality of the people of the Jews if they minded duty it was well they little thought of assistance through grace Tugging it out by their own strength and looking for no more from heaven than that which they had in hand Therefore entring Covenant and walking in their own strength they brake Covenant and were never able to rise to the duties of it as is hinted in that of Jeremy Therefore God promises a new covenant in which there shall be a full discovery and right understanding of the meaning of the Covenant I will write my Law in their hearts I will put it into their inward parts So that as the commandment of love was a new commandment so this covenant was a new covenant both given of old both a new cleared for a right understanding There was nothing wrong saith Mr. Dixon in the former Covenant but it was imperfect and all things in it were not expressed clearly Annot. on Heb. 8. 7. That which was chiefly defective as it seems was this here mentioned and therefore Mr. Baxter sayes well that this place doth comprize but part of the covenant not the whole though he be taken up by another for it in these words God saying expressely this is my Covenant to say it is not is not to interpret the Word but to deny it God sayes to the People of Israel Is not this the fast that I have chosen to loose the bands of wickednesse to undo every burden If any one should interpret that Text would he say the whole of a Religious Fast is there exprest and a full definition of a Fast laid down or would he instead of interpreting deny that Scripture So also that of James Jam. 1. 26. Pure religion and undefiled before God the Father is this To visit the fatherlesse and the widow and to keep a man unspotted of the world Will any say that the whole of Religion is set out in that Scripture or will he be put to it to deny the Scripture I suppose he would rather say that that which those Jews to whom Isay speaks did in use to do Religious Fasts with supply of that which Isay calls for in which they were defective makes up a Religious Fast compleat That which the scattered Tribes did in Religion with what James further calls for would render a man entirely Religious So also that of Jeremy 22. 15 16. Shalt thou reigne because thou closest thy self in Cedar Did not thy father eat and drink and do justice and judgment and then it was well with him He judged the cause of the poor and needy and then it was well with him was not this to know me saith the Lord Will any say that that was all the knowledge that Josiah had of God or will he say rather that this was an evident proof of the sincerity of it so I say that which the Jews already understood to be in the covenant together with that which those places of Jeremy and the Hebrews further hold forth set out the entire nature of a covenant and so in all of them Scripture is interpreted not denied And whereas one affirmes that there is no condition on mans part in those texts in question an adversary of all conditions on mans part in the covenant replyes If you mean such conditions that God requireth of us yet worketh in us it is there punctually exprest As Gods work it is there indeed exprest but not as our duty which lame understanding of the covenant hath wrought as much mischief in our age setting up free grace without any eye upon his sovereignty looking at Gods work and not at all on mans duty as their looking at duty in that age without eye had to the power of grace to enable for it Hence are those desperate counsels Sit still do nothing doing undoes you and that not toward Dilemma Art thou out of Christ thou mayst break thy heart in working and profit nothing Art thou in Christ then all is wrought to thy hands And so doing still is vain and Mr. Baxters Questionists like demands How can you make it appear that according to the new Covenant we must act for life and not only from life or that a man may make his attaining of life the end of his work and not rather obey it out of thankfulness and love To which I suppose he hath received a satisfying and if throughly weighed a sadning answer Appendix p. 78. 79 c. Fifthly This appears in that differencing work which is seen among men here in the flesh There is a great difference between those that are of God and those that are in the world that lies in wickednesse This is from the power of grace enabling to answer to that unto which God in covenant calls and not from the different improvement of any power of man or the exercise of that freedome of will which together with the whole species of mankind he hath received The Apostle puts the question Who hath made thee to differ 1 Cor. 4. 7. In which he intends to stop all mouths from boasting as appears in the next words If any therefore shall answer in Grevenchovius his words as I have seen them quoted or in any words that hold out or inferre the same thing I make my self to differ The Apostle will not sit down by it He expressely tells us It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy Rom 9. 16. If grace makes the difference and not man then grace enables man to go higher than his own power and to go higher than any power that can
rather than confesse a truth But they say Object This was a seale to Abraham of the righteousnesse of faith that he might be the Father of all them that beleeve c. But only Abraham is such a father Answ This priority of receiving the Faith and the signe and seale is proper to Abraham each one could not be first but father and childe both received it and both had the righteousnesse of Faith sealed in it If Bellarmine please so well I shall referre to Bellarmines opposites Chamier de Sacramentis in genere lib. 2. cap. 9. Ames Tom. 3. more especially Whittaker praelectiones de Sacramentis page 22 23. Hâ—c desperationis c. So that which way soever they take truth fastens upon them and the friends of truth flie in their face and all to make it appear that a pure Gospel was preach't to Abraham and that the first covenant was not mixt but truly Evangelical CHAP. XXXV The Covenant of Grace in Gospel-times admits Christians in a state of unregeneration and is not limited in the bounds of it to the Elect regenerate THe two former supposed differences did lay the first covenant too low not vouchsafing it the honour of a Gospel-covenant or at the best a mixt Gospel Two others follow which will hold us longer that put too great a limit to the second covenant in respect of the latitude and extent of it A third difference therefore assigned by some is that the first covenant took in all the seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob as many as professed themselves to be of the Faith and that were willing to joyne in the worship of the God of Abraham The New Covenant they affirm admits no more than Elect Regenerate persons The Gospel strips us of all relative Covenant holinesse of all holinesse that is not real and intrinsecal and God ownes none as his Covenant-people but Elect regenerate persons In the first place we shall take what is yielded or at least not gain-sayed and after proceed to the examination of what is affirmed In Old Testament-times the covenant was made with Israel in the uttermost latitude and extent with all that bore the name of Israel as we may see Deut. 29. at large held forth There is a covenant entred and the words of it exprest 1. With Israel verse 1. 2. With all Israel verse 2. 3. With them to whom God had not given an heart to perceive eyes to see and eares to hear ver 4. viz. with unregenerate persons 4. It is made with Captaines of Tribes Elders Officers little Ones Wives Strangers Hewers of wood Drawers of water vers 10 11. 5. With them that were present and with them that were absent verse 14 15. All this clearly shews in how great a latitude this covenant is entred No Israelite of any Sex Age Rank nor any that joyned themselves to that body are exempted Which also farther appears in those innumerable places of Scripture where God owns that people generally promiscuously as his people professing himself to be their God and he is the God of none but a covenant-people of his own covenant-people others are without God Eph. 2. 12. He was the God of all that came out of Egypt Exod. 20. 2. I am the Lord thy God which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt out of the house of Bondage Of all that whole family Amos 3. 1. Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against thee O children of Israel against the whole family which I have brought up from the land of Egypt Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord Deut. 6. 4. Yea Isreal at the very worst is thus owned as Gods in covenant Hear O my people and I will testifie unto thee O Israel if thou wilt hearken unto me but my people would not hearken to my voice Israel would have none of me Psal 8 8 11. The Oxe knows his Owner the Asse his Masters crib but Israel doth not know my people doth not consider Isa 1. 3. Therefore my people are gone into captivity because they have no knowledge Isa 5. 13. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge Hos 4. 6. And when they entred into the Heathen whither they went they prophaned my holy Name when they said unto them These are the people of the Lord Ezek. 36. 20. This is brought as a motive to withhold Israel from sin Ye are the children of the Lord your God ye shall not cut your selves nor make any baldnesse between your eyes for the dead for thou art an holy people to the Lord thy God Deut. 14. 1 2. This is pleaded as an aggravation of sin You have I known of all the Nations of the earth and therfore you will I punish for all your iniquities Amos 3. 2. This is brought as a motive to prevail with God under misery for mercy Behold we beseâ—ch thee we are all thy people Isa 64. 9. Yea this covenant takes with God for national mercies The whole of the Nation then is in covenant Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember and will remember the land Levit. 26. 42. The Apostles authority puts it out of question Reckoning up the priviledges of Israel according to the flesh nine in number Rom. 9. 4. This is one The covenants Israel then after the flesh was in covenant All Israel were the covenant-people of God There were many not Elect not Regenerate but there was not a man not in covenant not owned of God as visibly his Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his people Deut. 26. 17 18. This was the state of the Church of old But now as is affirmed it is far otherwise God is not so large in his priviledges nor so ample in his munificence none have honour to be in covenant in Gospel-times but real beleevers men truly sanctified and regenerate And here it cannot be denied but there are many expressions ordinarily found in many Orthodox Writers and like passages frequently heard in Sermons from godly Ministers seemingly implying if not asserting it and restraining the covenant onely to the elect and regenerate As when they give Marks and signes of mens being in covenant with God this must needs imply that some professing Christians are in covenant with God and some without which is yet farther evidenced when they conclude that in case a man be in covenant with God then happinesse and salvation follows But when these men fully explain themselves they yeeld up again to us that which seemingly they had taken from us and ordinarily do distinguish of an outward and inward covenant acknowledging the outward covenant to be made with every member of the Church and the Parents with that hear and professedly accept the promises and their children But the inward covenant as they say belongs to
of their plagues Rev. 18. 4. and therefore to depart and be gone when their truths could not be enjoyed but their guilt through sinne contracted and it is onely their sinne that we relinquish It is their Schisme in that or any other Church that obtrude these Heterogeneal things and not theirs that do refuse them 6. Corruptions in conversation scarce admit of separation provided that doctrine be such in which men may have communion for edification If we look upon the people of Israel through the revolution of all times after they were a visible body come out from Abrahams loines we may finde high titles given them of singular glory by reason of priviledges which they enjoyed by their call into Church-fellowship children of God holy people Gods peculiar ones his portion his heritage The apple of his eye Deut. 14. 1 2. and 32. 9. Zach 2. 8. and abundant the like Elogies in sundry other texts of Scripture A people near unto God Psal 148. 14. the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service and the promises did appertaine to them Rom. 9. 4. Therefore Prophets and righteous persons kept their residence among them held communion with them and saw no ground of separation from them the words of eternal life being with them as Christ testifies in his speech to the Samaritan woman John 4. 22. when in the meane time their qualifications were as low as their titles high their conversation no way answering their calling but branded to be stiffe-necked of an iron sinew adulterous a sinful Nation a people foolish and unwise as Sodom and Gomorrah to the Lord Deut 9. 6. Isa 48. 4. Ezek. 16 32. Isa 1. 4. Deut. 32. 6. Isa 1. 10. It is a great contradiction with some men to name men at all Saints beleevers professours when their lives evidence an unsuitablenesse to such a glory yet we know the Churches to whom Epistles are directed in Scriptures are so honoured as we may see in their frontispieces and among them the choicest and most upright-hearted had converse and communion when yet they did wrong defraud contended aud disputed for Idol pollutions and defilements prophaned the Lords Table were fornicators unclean lascivious luke-warm having onely a name to live when they were dead 1 Cor. 3. 3. 1 Cor. 6. 7. 1 Cor. 8. 10. 1 Cor. 11. 20. 2 Cor. 12. 20. Rev. 3. 16. Rev. 3. 1. So that Calvin on 1 Cor. 1. 2. puts a question how Paul could give the name of a Church to them If we would know what the Prophets and Apostles held concerning lawfulnesse of communion in such Churches we may enquire what was their practice They did not leave them but made it their businesse by all ways in their power to reclaim them to work a change and conversion among them The advice that was sometimes given to a maid that for religions sake would retire her self to a solitary life if she were bad she needed the City to better her if good the City needed her may be given to these persons either they stand in need of the Church or the necessities of the Church call for their help and assistance 7. The same that I have said of corruption in conversation I may affirme of neglects in discipline Reverend Master Cotton judges that the many notorious scandalous Persons that were found in the Church of Israel did argue the neglect of Church-discipline in the toleration of such publick scandals in the Church Holinesse of Church-members pag. 21. And yet none of the Prophets or men of God who could not be ignorant of the Churches duty and their sinne in such neglects ever made attempt of setting up purer select Churches nor made separation from that which was in this sort as is said faulty All was not right in exercise of discipline in the Churches planted by the Apostles some are censured as foully faulty The Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 5 2. The Church of Smyrna Rev 2 14. The Church of Thyatira Rev. 2. 20. Neither could the â—hurch of Sardis be free seeing that the greatest part as it appeares were openly bad there being but few that had not defiled their garments Rev. 3. 4. and yet nothing is heard by way of advise for any to make separation nor reproof for their holding up communion nor any one instance of a separatist given Those that for many years together during the Reigne of the three last Princes denyed to come up to a full conformity to this Church had a low opinion of the discipline then exercised of which they have left behinde them large evidences yet how tender were they of the Churches honour to keep Christians in Communion How zealous were they against separation As may appeare in the labours of Master Parker though distasted by him that prefaced before his work of Ecclesiastical Policy Master Paget Master Ball Master Brightman laid us low enough when he did not onely parallel us with luke-warme Laodicea but made that Church the type and us the antitype Our state as we stood at that time by reason of our discipline according to him being rather aimed at by Jesus Christ in his Epistle then the Laodicean State in Asia then existent yet how zealous is he against separation from these Assemblies Having largely set out a double and singular honour in that Church as he stiles it viz Christs entrance into those that open to him and his sweet residence and abode being entred with them he breaks out into these words Therefore their errour is wicked and blasphemous who so forsake the Church as if Christ were altogether banished thence no hope of salvation left for those that do remain Let them think upon Christ as feasting here with his Will they be ashamed to sit down where they see Christ is not ashamed Will they be more holy and pure then he wherfore do they not convince themselves in their own practice they cannot deny but they beleeved in â—hrist before they made a divorce from us whence â—ad they this faith came it not by the preaching in our Church and can any one preach unlesse he be sent Rom. 10 13. Wherefore then do they so perversly nause 〈◊〉 the word upon any pretence of blot in an external calling when they are sensible of its divine power in their hearts Wherefore returne to the unity of the Church which hath begotten and hath nourished you if you flie from Christ 〈◊〉 feasts with his elect in our Congregation entertaining them mutually truly you will finde him no where How doth Reverend Master Cotton in his preface to Master Hildersams work upon the fourth of John whom without honour I cannot mention set forth his renoune for this work of opposing separation of which he still appeares to be tender though he seeme page 13. of his Treatise of holinesse of Church-members to be over indulgent to it Speaking in excuse of those that withdraw from communion
I will be their God That seed of Abraham that had possession of the land of Canaan through the gift and by vertue of the promise of God is the seed here taken into covenant to have the Lord for their God This is so plaine that nothing can be plainer to any that read the words But the natural seed of Abraham all the seed of Jacob in their several Tribes according as God set them their bounds inherited the land of Canaan which is called the land of their inheritance and not onely the spiritual seed Regenerate Look into the History of of Scripture who those were that inherited Canaan and you may see who were in this covenant The natural seed were there and not only the spiritual Even those of Abrahams posterity that died not having obtained the promises Heb. 11. 13. that only so journed in Canaan and were never possest of it had title to it It was theirs in reversion though they never came into actual possession My next Argument is drawn from the Seale that is annext in the words immediately following this additional promise ver 9 10 11. And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my covenant therfore thou aâ—d thy seed after thee in their generations This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-man-childe among you shall be circumcised And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your fore-skin and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you They that had the signe and seale of the covenant that had it by divine appointment were a people in Covenant This is so plaine that nothing can be more plaine God doth not enter covenant with one and give the signe and seal to another but all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob had the seal viz. all the males all those that were in a capacity of it it was not limitted to the spiritual seed There had been no place for that distinction of Circumcision in the flesh and Circumcision of the heart if none must be circumcised in flesh but those that are circumcised in heart My third Argument is drawn from the Comment that God himself makes of this covenant in the whole Series of Scripture-history holding it out every where in this way of tenure to Abraham and his natural issue as before Where God himself speaks to the whole body of Israel when they were newly come up out of the land of Egypt he sayes I am the Lord your God Exod. 20 2. Deut. 5. 6. God owned all of that whole people as his all of them being Abrahams natural issue yet all of them were not spiritual and while they were in Egypt God speaks of them all in community as his Let my people go that they may hold a feast unto me in the wildernesse Exod. 5. 1. We see the titles that he gives them Children of the Lord your God an holy People a peculiar People above all Nations Deut. 14. 1 2. That speech of the Lord to Israel Amos 3. 1 2. is very full to our purpose Heare ye the Word of the Lord that he hath spoken against you O children of Israel against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt saying You only have I known of all the families of the earth therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities Every one that descended from Jacob the whole of the family that came out of Egypt were a select people to God in covenant He was according to the termes of that Covenant their God There is not a place where God calls them by the name of his people which are almost endlesse but there we have this confirmed that that people were the Lords by vertue of this grant made to Abraham and his seed In the fourth place I argue from the practice of the people of God making this Covenant of God entred with Abraham and his seed a plea to obtaine mercy from God for all Israel the worst of Israel in their lowest state and condition Deut. 9 26 27. O Lord God destroy not thy people and thine in heritance which thou hast redeemed through thy greatnesse which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand Remember thy servants Abraham Isaac and Jacob look not unto the stubbornnesse of this people nor to their wickednesse nor to their sinne If this Divinity had been then known Moses might have been sent away with this answer That he spake for dogges and not for children not for Israel but for aliens and strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel But as this and the like requests of the people of God were made in faith so they prevailed with God Moses there urges They are thy people and thine inheritance verse 29. as doth the Church Isa 64. 9. Be not wroth very sore O Lord neither remember iniquity for ever behold see we beseech thee we are all thy people and Moses petition takes as the History shews Exod. 32. 14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people yea when God vouchsafes mercy to his people thus in covenant Levit. 26. 42. it is upon this account of the Covenant Then will I remember my Covenant with Jacob and also my Covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember and I will remember the land Lev. 26. 42. And appearing for the deliverance of Israel out of their hard and pressing bondage he saith to Moses I am the God of thy Father the God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob Exod. 3. 6. and that to stay up his faith in confidence of deliverance To this here in this place delivered one replies Object The Covenant saith he with Abraham and his seed I finde Gen. 17. 7. and the urging of this covenant I deny not Exod. 32. 13. Deut. 9. 27. Lev. 26. 42. Exod. 3. 6. And though I say not that it contained only the promise of Canaan but grant it contained the Promise of Redemption by Christ Luke 1. 17. yet I like not Chamiers saying to call the Promise of Canaan an appendant to the covenant sith the Holy Ghost me thinks speaks otherwise Psalme 105. 8 9. 10 11. I shall say no more but leave it to the Reader whether this be any answer only for his censure of Chamiers calling the promise of the land of Canaan an appendant to this covenant the thing is so clear in the narrative of it Gen. 17. that nothing can be more evident The Covenant is full vers 7. To be a God to Abraham and to his seed and this he might have been had he pleased in the land of Vr of the Caldees or in any land whatsoever where Abrahams seed had been planted But when the covenant is thus made there is added And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the land wherein thou art a stranger
all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession As for that of the Psalmist where he thinks the holy Ghost speaks otherwise the force of this Argument must needs be this That which is any where called a Covenant that is not an appendant to a covenant but the giving of the land of Canaan to the seed of Abraham is there called by the name of a Covenant He will not I think say that Circumcision is the Covenant between God and his people he will not deny but it is a signe and seale annext to the covenant and yet Gen. 17. 10. it is called a Covenant This is my Covenant which she shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee every man-childe among you shall be circumcised Metonimies of the adjunct are well enough known and the common use of them in Scripture but that it is his wisdome for his advantage to conceale it My fifth and last argument is drawn from those several Texts in the New Testament which interpret this Covenant thus entred with Abraham in that latitude as extending to his natural issue and not with limit to his spiritual seed and that not barely in domestick or civil but in spiritual promises so that this one hath many in the bowels of it First Rom. 9. 1 2 3 4 5. verses The Apostle aggravating in the highest and saddest way that great heavinesse aud continual sorrow of heart that he had for Israel not respective to civil or domestick but higher concernments even for the whole body of Israel his brethren and kinsmen according to the flesh as he expresseth himself v. 3. For amplification of the real grounds of his trouble that such a people should be cast off he reckons up their priviledges the priviledges of all that according to the flesh were Israelites Priviledges formerly enjoyed but now lost nine in number Who are Israelites to whom appertaines the Adoption and the Glory and the Covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the Promises Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever Amen Here sure is enough to conclude them of the seed thus in covenant to be of Gods adopted seed under the Promises Secondly Rom. 11. Throughout the whole body of the chapter the Apostle speaks of the casting off of Gods people Those that are cast off from being a people of God were once his people those that are put out of covenant were a people in Covenant but the natural issue of Abraham called natural branches verse 21. being by right of birth of that Olive are there broken off cast off therefore the natural issue was the seed in covenant Thirdly Mat. 8. 11 12. Upon occasion of the Faith of the Centurion which Christ so magnifies and preferres before the faith of any in Israel he prophecies of the call of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jewes I say unto you that many shall come from the East and West and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdome of heaven But the children of the Kingdome shall be cast out into utter darknesse there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth Nations from all quarters of the world every point of the Heavens shall embrace the Faith and be received visible members of the Kingdom of God when the children of the Kingdome that are now in it and enjoy it shall be cast out of it children of the Kingdome that are to be cast out are in the Kingdome only upon an interest of birth for the fruition of the priviledges of Ordinances and not upon any spiritual title infallibly giving interest in Salvation But the children of the Kingdome were upon our Saviours sentence to be cast out therefore they were in the Kingdome only on an interest of Birth Fourthly Gal 2. 15. In that chapter among other things we have a narrative from the Apostle of his dealing by way of reproof with Peter at Antioch In which we may observe 1. The occasion given by Peter vers 12. Before that certain came from James he did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself 2. The issue which followed upon this carriage of his And the other Jewes dissembled likewise with him insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation 3. Arguments brought for conviction of Peter of this error which are two The first in the 14. vers If thou being a Jew livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as do the Jewes why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jewes Thus the Argument runnes It is unreasonable to draw others into a practice that thou thy self purposely forbearest But thou thy self keepest not the Jewish Rites and Ordinances and therefore it is an unreasonable and blame-worthy practice by thy example to compel others to their observation yea thou being a Jew takest thy self to have freedome unreasonably then dost thou draw on others who were never under any such obligation The second Argument is in the 15. and 16. verses We who are Jewes by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Jesus Christ even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the Law for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified which is thus enforced In that way wherein we who are Jews with all our birth-priviledges cannot attain to righteousness we may not teach the Gentiles to attain to it But we who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles cannot this way attaine to righteousnesse We know that a man is justified by faith we are compelled to quit the Law and to cleave to Faith without works for justification These words which come up to our present purpose containe 1. The priviledge of Peter Paul Barnabas with the rest of the Jewes 2. The character of the Gentiles in opposition to the Jewes As to the full purpose for which these words are brought by the Apostle they have for the sense of them their dependance on the words that follow but so farre as they containe the priviledge of the Jewes in opposition to and above the Gentiles to which we are to speak so farre they are full of themselves shewing First Positively what himself and Peter were Jewes by nature Secondly Negatively what they were not sinners of the Gentiles Where nature is taken not in the proper but vulgar acceptation for birth or descent from Ancestours as usually in our common phrase of speech we say men are naturally Dutch French Spanish Irish when they are such borne and bred This Scripture therefore Camero cites for one in which the Apostle speaks after the vulgar manner We have a Scripture parallel with this Rom. 11. 24. wher
root is too low in the earth to have its examples followed and syens suck in juice but know not how to imitate And what kinde of root soever any can make it the root mentioned by the Apostle in that Chapter is a root by communication verse 17. If some of the branches be broken off and thou being a wilde Olive-tree wert graffed amongst them and with them partakest of the root and fatnesse of the Olive-tree The root here communicates fatnesse to the branches and the branches receive from the root It is then a communicative root and doth communicate that which makes the branch one with it Abraham is indeed called a father as well as he is called a root but these two are not full Synonima's though in the maine they agree both Metaphors aptly setting forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel appertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom. 9. 4 5. And so to all those that are become children and branches with them The title father is yet extended to a greater latitude as he doth impart to his issue as before so he is a patterne and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. 12. it is set forth Argument 5. Fifthly From verse 25. If the breaking off the Jews be by blinding then the ingraffing is by giving Faith but the former is true ver 25. Ergo the latter Answ Here as in the third Argument I grant the conclusion and return the same answer Jewish blindnesse keeps them out of a Church-state and so from all Faith in the Covenant and when the vaile shall be taken away they shall be reinvested in a Church-state and Covenant-condition For proof there is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blinding or hardening is verse 7. opposed to that state which the Election obtained by which ver 8. they had a spirit of slumber eyes that they should not see eares that they should not hear verse 10. Whereby their eyes were darkened that they might not see from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation Ames animad in Remon Script Synod Art 1. Cap. 16. Hoc ipsum ad reprobationem spectare Apostolus Paulus clarè ostendit Rom. 11. 17. Now according to the rule of opposites Oppositorum opposita sunt attributa If the blinding be the effect of reprobation and the breaking off be by blinding then the ingraffing is by inlightening and that enlightening is according to Election and so is all one with giving of Faith The proposition being If the blinding be the effect of reprobation and the breaking off is by blinding then the ingraffing is by enlightening and that according to Election then the assumption can be no other but that blindnesse is the effect of reprobation and the breaking off is by blinding No one of the Contra-Remonstrants worthy the name of an adversary of Arminians hath taught this doctrine It that which their adversaries indeed charge upon them but that which they unanimously do disclaime I have heard that reprobation is the antecedent of sinne but never that it was the cause and that sinne is a consequent of it but never an effect Reprobation is the Act of God and in case it be the cause of blindnesse then God is the cause of blindnesse so that the Contra-remonstrants have got a sweet Advocate to cast that upon them that none of their adversaries though they have turned every stone to do it could never proue by them And the other member that casting away way is by blinding is little better The Apostle speaks in another manner Blindnesse was their guilt and casting off was their just sentence Because of unbelief they were broken off verse 20. upon this account God God did not spare them as it follows in the next verse The work and the wages the guilt and the punishment are not one Unbelief and breaking off are the work and the wages the guilt and the punishment Breaking off then as not blinding The Apostle layes all at mans doore makes his blindnesse the moving cause according to that of the Prophet Thy destruction is of thy self and God only the severe but just Judge Our Authour layes all upon God Gods reprobation causes blindnesse 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 blindnesse is no effect of reprobation breaking off being not by blinding what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced 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 sinne which Contra-remonstrants unanimously deny though we finde it here affirmed It is further said that from verse 8. 10. of this Chapter Anti-Arminians gather absolute Reprobation and then explaining what this absolute Reprobation is in the words spoken to But though much be spoke of the irrespective decree both between us and Arminians and also among our selves yet I would faine learne what one Anti-Arminian ever made Reprobation absolute in this sense Amesius is quoted but the word absolute is not found in him And Gomarus a man for the irrespective decree as much as any and upon that account entred his dissent in the Synod of Dort where respective to reprobation that was denied and Sublapsarian opinion established yet he peremptorily denies any reprobation absolute in this sense Neither doth God saith he absolutely and barely destinate any man to destruction without subordinate meanes but he destinates him to just destruction that is by and for sinne justly to be executed Analysis Epist ad Rom. cap. 9. p. 60. Neither will he have this decree to effect the sinne that is a just Medium of destruction In the same page he saith God doth not decree to effect sin but to suffer or not to hinder and to governe for his glory Neither doth God effect all that he doth decree but those things which he decreed to effect of those he is the Authour us all the good that is done But the evil which he decreed not to hinder in his creature that he doth not effect because he did not decree to effect them but onely permits and governs them and at last justly according to his decree punishes them And Doctor Prideaux Lect. 1. de absoluto decreto That necessary distinction between the effect and consequent viz. of reprobation loâ—ses not a few knots which many understanding or not duely heeding are brought into fraits by their adversaries The condensation of water that I may use Austins instance is a consequent of the absence of the Sun not an effect The ruine of a house of it self tending to decay necessarily follows upon the want of repaire which the Master might do in
other hand interpret the Apostles words as his method will equally bear accordingly as you have heard before and no such inconveniency follows from the words either verse 14. or 16. And now our adversary may easily receive an answer to that odious inference which he makes from our interpretation of Covenant-holinesse According to this interpretation saith he the medium of the Apostle to prove the lawfulnesse of the living of a beleeving wife with an unbeleeving husband will as well prove the lawfulnesse of a beleeving fornicatrix with an unbeleeving fornicator as may appeare saith he by a Syllogisticall Analysis of the Apostles argument the major whereof is this That man and woman may live together notwithstanding the unbelief of one party whereof one is sanctified to the other for begetting an holy seed This is manifestly the Apostles reason he sayes after our interpretation But he is manifestly mistaken not to mention the liberty that he will scarce allow another to leave out husband and wife exprest in the text and instead of it to put man and woman The Apostle doth not conclude the lawfulnesse of their marriag-society by the federation of their issue but shews that the supposed and feared non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulnesse and I dare yeeld that any man and woman may live together notwithstanding any feare of the unholinesse of their issue where one is sanctified by the faith of another to the begetting of a seed federally holy And if he will apply this which the Apostle speaks of a mans living with his wife ad faciendum populum to the living with his whore there is no danger to yeeld it Pharez his issue had belonged to the Common-weale of Israel if Tamar had been an Infidel as for ought we know and in all probability it was with Jephtaes mother If Sampson had issue by the Harlot of Gaza Judges 16. 1. such issue had belonged to Israel such issue male had right to Circumcision To gratifie him I shall put it under my hand that if a man have no other reason from Scripture to leave his Harlot then the non-federation of his issue he may still abide with her and that he is not bound upon that sole account to desert her If any shall attempt to keep up these two maine propositions by me examined on which the whole fabrick of a long discourse is built for to make good the interpretation mentioned and refute the arguments against it I shall readily and willingly look into it which for several yeares I have waited till then I shall conclude that federal holinesse and not legitimation is here intended A mighty stirre is here further made about instrumental sanctification and arguments heaped by Master Tombes against it the most of them grounded upon those two Propositions which he would have his Reader beleeve that I confesse when he cannot prove That al the children whereof one parent is not sanctified to the other are unclean none of the children whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are cleane together with the other That this is a concluding formal reason to prove the lawfulnesse of their abode together upon this account it is affirmed that our interpretation fits not the case of persons disabled from procreation it makes the Apostles argument to be from a future contingent I appeal to any Logician and Grammarian whether a person may be said to be instrumentally sanctified for such an effect which he neither doth nor can produce Whether a woman may be said to be sanctified quoad hoc so farre as to bring forth an holy seed by vertue of the faith of her husband who is by age or accidental impotency utterly disabled naturally from bearing any children and hath no supernatural power enabling her thereto whether she may be capable to bring forth an holy seed who is not capable to bring forth any at all bringing forth an holy seed cannot be without bringing forth a seed and therefore the woman uncapable to bring forth a seed is uncapable to bring forth an holy seed And I on the contrary appeal to any yea the meanest Christian whether persons that have children born in wedlock-bonds in such disparity may not have their fears and scruples about them notwithstanding other in the same condition of marriage are childlesse or unable to bring forth children Whether the seed which came of those marriages Ezra 10. were not uncleane notwithstanding many so married had no children many of the Priests had herein transgrest and it was but some of them that had wives by whom they had children Ezra 10. 44. And because this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination verse 13. that they might live together it must needs be from a future contingent but when this is no medium for proof of the Apostles determination as hath been sufficiently shewn it is not this falls with the other Two arguments against instrumental sanctification I shall take notice of which seeme to have some other bottome 1. That the act of producing an holy seed is not from any special designation of God and therefore cannot be meant of instrumental sanctification seeing an instrument must be the instrument of the principal agent which can be no other then God I am sure they bring forth children unto God Ezek. 16. 20. and this they do not independently of themselves so Christ would not have warned Matth. 23. 10. Call no man father upon earth for one is your Father whech is in heaven All natural parents are instruments of God to produce a seed to people the world according to that blessing of Gen. 1. 28. Gen. 9. 1. Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth All beleeving parents are instruments of God for an holy seed it being of his free grace that the promise is to them and their seed The second argument is that many a child of both unbeleeving parents are federaly holy and being answered that they are not so at their birth if afterwards by grace they are changed this is no fruit of their birth of which the question is in this place but the work of the Gospel through grace It is replied This is nothing to the purpose sith the Proposition hath not those words in it nor the Apostle the Apostles reason supposeth it cannot be at any time It seems then that the Apostles Proposition hath this in it that their children so borne are unclean by birth and for all eternity shall so remaine never to be cleansed or else this exception is lesse to purpose who does not see that the Apostle speaks uncleannesse or holinesse as a product of their birth without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen as a mean woman given in marriage to a Senator or Peer she is enobled by her husband otherwise her issue were plebeians yet so as they are capable of honour by the Princes munificence or their
own merit It seems that Proposition of Christs That which is borne of the flesh John 3. 6. will not hold unlesse it must for ever continue flesh and no omnipotence of God shall be able to make it otherwise It is further said and yet it may be certain that the child of two unbeleevers may be federally holy at birth whether it be understood of Election inherent holinesse or outward holinesse if God please to work and declare it To this I onely say let that proposition stand till God by such a miracle confute or contradict it and whensoever he shall thus own such unclean infants as federally holy I shall be silent It is farther said But the issue of them that are not lawfully enjoyned as husband and wife cannot be made legitimate by God because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawful copulation of lawful husband and wife So that the reply is brought to this because God by his omnipotence can make our uncleane ones holy and to make their uncleane ones holy is without the verge of omnipotence therefore his interpretation stands and ours must fall If we should put case in their manner that God should appear in approbation of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage-society then there were a legitimation of the issue as he did the marriage of the brothers wife Deut. 25. 5. otherwise against the moral Law Levit. 18. 16. Or as some understand it the Prophets taking a wife of whoredoms CHAP. LII Gal. 4. 29. Vindicated THe next Scripture Text to make good the point in hand is Gal. 4. 29. As then he that was borne after the flesh persecuted him that was borne after the Spirit even so it is now For the clearing of which I have observed heretofore in the Apostles words there First the History Secondly the Mystery by way of Allegory Thirdly the parallel by the Apostle observed and applied to his own times The History we finde verse 22 23. It is written that Abraham had two sonnes the one by a bond-maide the other by a free-woman but he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh but he of the free-woman was by promise The Mystery by way of Allegory verse 24 25 26. Which things are an Allegory for these are the two Covenants the one from the Mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage which is Agar For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and answereth to Hierusalem which now is and is in bondage with her children But Hierusalem which is above is free which is the mother of us all The parallel in these words But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit so it is now From whence this argument is drawn If there yet remaine in the bosome of the Church children borne after the flesh as well as those that are borne of the Spirit so that the distinction of births as applied to Abrahams seed still hath place among Christians then there is that priviledge of birth-holinesse still remaining The consequence is plaine Birth of the flesh in the Church gave a Church-interest The Apostles kinsemen after the flesh Rom. 9. 3. were all Church-members That there is is such a birth yet remaining the Text quoted makes cleare Ishmael was in Abrahams family and was by birth of his family and did persecute in the family and was by birth of his family and did persecute in the family as the Apostles shews out of Scriture History Men in the Church borne in the Church by birth-right of the Church do persecute as upon experience he affirms and so makes up the parallel There birth of the flesh is the highest honour they attaine when others have the same with an addition to it this implies two things 1. A birth of nature a childe by lineal descent of such a father 2. Outward prerogatives that accompany such a birth I know and have declared that this is not that which the Apostle here chiefly intends or is about to hold out But this I affirme that he occasionally layes down that which I here have delivered And by this free concession of mine any man in reason might have thought that I had prevented that which is still charged upon that which from this Text I have inferred or rather that which in this Text I have observed one largely shewing that these words in hand are a compound proposition which Logicians call a comparative proposition in which are two parts a Protasis and an Apodosis or rendring wherein that which answers the fore part first held out is expressed now that alwayes notes some agreement correspondence parity or likenesse whether in quantity quality action c. But according to my Apodosis or reddition as is said there is no such answerablenesse or likenesse as hath the shew of a comparison of things equal or alike as this is as the affirmative termes shew for who would conceive any better then non-sense in such a speech as this Even as Ishmael persecuted Isaac so the children of Christian beleevers are visible members in the Christian Church It were all one as to say even as Esau hated Jacob so godly men are heirs of heaven or have accesse to God The absurdity of which with him is so grosse that the man is amazed that I do not see it nor will confesse it Being above his strength to answer that sense which I give of the words he is pleased to take paines to make them up by his glosse into non-sense that so no answer may need But he well knows or might know that I have not to deale with the whole of that Protasis nor the whole of that Apodosis and not at all with the persecution there mentioned but onely with the distinction there let fall which is a distinction of births both in Abrahams family and in the Church in Gospel-times which the Apostle in his Application in those words Then and Now plainly doth demonstrate The truth which the Apostle supposes and takes for granted I have here to speak to and not to that which by way of allegory he infers from it or applies to it and so the list of authours here brought in by my adversary speaking of the persecution of Christians by Jews and Papists may all of them speak truth but none of them all any thing against me who deduce no more from the words but that a distinction of births is there laid down or rather taken for granted which is by the Apostle allegorised but the allegory is not at all within that which I am upon I met with like dealings from the same hand when I did compare 1 Cor 7. 14. with Gal. 2. 15. to make good a title to Covenant-holinesse by birth of nature both with Jew and Gentile I then heard those words of the poet Cerniâ—us an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt But the evidence of
truth with Master Cartwrights authority making them as to the thing full parallel as to every eye they are hath there wrought some silence so I doubt not but it will follow here It is not the Apostles intention Gal. 2. 15. to speak of the birth-priviledg of the Jews nor yet the want of it in the Gentiles yet there he mentions both neither is it his intention to treat of such a distinction of births in the Church Jewish or Christian but the hostile disposition of one so born against another yet in that place he plainly signifies such a distinction of births in either Church both Jewish and Christian Can any man deny that Abraham had two sons of such different births as the Apostle from the hystory in Genesis shews v. 22 23. Ishmael is set out as a son of Abraham and upon that account we know he had the honour of circumcision Isaac had the same but a degree of further honour with it being born as Ishmael was not by promise And whatsoever Allegory the Apostle makes of it which is not to my purpose to examine yet in his reddition or application he looks at the hiâ—story not at the allegory as the adverbs of time Then Now neither of which are allegorised do demonstrate And though Ishmael may be a type of a justitiary seeking righteousnesse by works and persecuting those that seek a righteousnesse by faith whether typus factus or destinatus I will not enquire yet I think it will never be proved that Ishmael was such a one in his own person persecuting Isaac on that account which must be proved if the Apostle in his reddition do no look at the history but the allegory as my adversary contends or else he speaks besides the purpose Then looks at the history denoting time as none can deny and Now must not referre to the allegory without great absurdity My interpretation as is said will not hold in that according to it there is no agreement correspondency or parity in the parts of the compound proposition And I wonder what agreement correspondency or parity there is or can be in the parts of this compound proposition according to the interpretation opposed against me confounding history and allegory together Thus it must be as Ishmael no justitiary then jeered Isaac a sucking babe as my adversary out of Hierome speaks who was not in capacity to look after any righteousnesse so it is now justitiaries persecute those that do follow after righteousnesse by faith If this glosse stand it should not be so it is now but rather now it is otherwise He that will come to a right understanding of the Text must refer this 29. verse to 22 and 23. looking upon verse 24 25 26 27 28. where the allegory is prosecuted as a parenthisis seeing the words in v. 29. cannot be refer'd to the allegory in those words where there is no mention made of persecution but to the history in the former I am told that the Apostles distribution cannot be of a subject by its adjuncts but of a genus into its species because birth is neither substance quantity nor quality but an action or a passion and actions though they be capable of various modifications yet Logiscians as is said do not call them subjects But doubtlesse the person borne is and may be called a subject and stands in a capacity of adjuncts and I look to the persons here distinguished some with more inferior and others with more noble adjuncts When I cite may Master Baine brought in against me as an adversary saying The children of the flesh here are those onely who in course of nature came from Abraham I am told it is true that Mr. Bayne so interprets the terme children of the flesh Rom. 9. 8. as I have cited him which place he meant but not the terme he that is borne after the flesh Gal. 4. 29. yea p. 138. he saith for though children of the flesh in some other Scripture meaning Gal. 4 29. doth note out justitiaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here Rom. 9. 8. the literal meaning is to be taken a childe of the flesh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh But how can Mr. Bayne possibly meane Gal. 4 29. as I am here told he doth when he speaks of the children of the flesh when those words are not to be found there but born after the flesh and those terms children of the flesh and born after the flesh are in this very place by my adversary distingushed And though Master Bayne do not quote Gal 4 29. in that place which I mentioned yet Doctor Abbot in Thomsoni diatribam p. 115. saith Circumcisus est Ishmael circumcisus Isaac solus autem Isaac natus secundum spiritum Ishmael tantummodo secundum carnem non est autem justificatus qui natus est tantum modo secundum carnem Ishmael quanquam circumcisus non est tamen justificatus c. Here he plainly makes the birth of the flesh an honour giving circumcision though an honour inferiour to that of the birth of the spirit which justification accompanies and he quotes Gal. 4. 29. as a proof of what he speaks and I am much engaged to my Antagonist for his quotation out of Hierome Sicut ergo tum major frater Ishmael lactentem adhuc parvulum persequabatur Isaac sibi circumcisionis prerogativum sibi primogenita vendicans ita nunc c. Whence had he this prerogative of circumcision but from this birth that I speak of from Abraham and there is the like prerogative of birth still continuing or else there is no parity in the Apostles reddition Here I shall take notice of a fourfold absurdity endeavoured to be fastened upon me 1. That I understand this to be said of Infants which then must be said to persecute But I understand it not of Infants but of those which sometimes were Infants and had their birth in infancy from such and such parents 2. That I take being born after the flesh in the latter part to note a natural birth but that is clean besides the Apostles meaning who considers persons borne after the flesh not as borne by humane members and seed but as born by a fleshly covenant otherwise it would import no allegory contrary to the Apostles speech ver 24. which tells us these things are an allegory If I should take it in one part of the proposition in one sense and in another part of the proposition in another sense I should then quite spoile the agreement which I am told must be in it and then I might have been indeed argued against for an absurdity whereas it is said that the Apostle considers persons borne after the flesh not as born by humane members and seed but as borne by a fleshly Covenant I say that that is false as to the history and I have shewed by reasons that have yet no satisfying answer that the Apostle
v. 22 23. lays down the history which afterwards he allegorizes in five verses and then makes application of the history and not of the allegory v. 29. 3. That to be born after the flesh should import birth of Abraham as a beleever and so natural generation of each child of a beleever in that respect â—ut then to be borne after the flesh would be common to Isaac with Ishmael to him that is borne after the spirit of the free woman by promise with him that is borne after the flesh of the the bond-woman for to be borne of Abraham or a beleever agrees also to Isaac to him that is born after the Spirit of the free-woman by promise whereas to be borne after the flesh is taken in a sense from which Isaac and we that is Paul and other Christian beleevers are excluded That is that certain clear truth by way of necessary corollary would follow which that great Doctor Abbot in the place quoted takes for granted speaking of both births and applying his tantummodo twice over to Ishmaels birth he clearly signifies that Ishmael had this honour and that Isaac had it likewise and that which is far more noble together with it 4. It is said that I quite pervert the Apostles intent in taking to be born after the flesh to impart an honour whereas the Apostle mentions birth after the flesh as a debasement takes it in the worser part not as importing a descent from the father but from the mother and that mother a bond woman and therefore the children servants or bondâ—slaves by reason of their being borne after the flesh And doth not the Apostle tell us in the relation of the history of their father as well as their mother does he not speak of one common father in these words Abraham had two sons as well as of two different mothers and I dare not take the boldnesse to exclude either I confesse the Apostle mentions birth after the flesh as a debasement in putting it in opposition to birth of the Spirit yet I affirme that he mentions it also as an honour As circumcision was a debasement in one respect Eph. 2. 11 and an honour in another Rom. 3. 1. Phil. 3. 5. It was an honour to have Circumcision in the flesh they were thereby a people of God in Covenant but it was a debasement being put in opposition to circumcission in heart and to the worshipping of God in Spirit and in Truth it was an honour to be born of Abraham after the flesh and frequently mentioned in Scripture as an honour but an abasement when it is opposed to the birth of God by the Spirit Much more might be animadverted but this is enough as I think to the cause and I purposely avoid all that concernes the person I know not what more may be said but I finde nothing as yet said but that which instead of evincing the contrary being thoroughly examined is a more full confirmation that in New Testament-times such a distinction of births is in New Testament-times continned clearly hinted and taken for granted here and in other Scriptures fully exprest CHAP. LIII Matth. 19. 14. Mark 10. 14. Luk. 18. 16. Vindicated THat Text in the Gospel uttered by our Saviour Christ and recorded by three Evangelists comes now to be considered Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the Kingdome of God In the whole Narrative in Gospel-records we may see First The pious care of Parents or others in their stead to present Infants to Christ Secondly The harsh entertainment that they found from the Disciples of Christ Thirdly The good will of the Lord Christ towards them manifested 1. In his displeasure against those that forbade their coming 2. In his free admission of them 3. In gratifying their requests that brought them 4. In receiving them in his Armes In the words that we have in hand we see 1. Their admission or at least charge given for it Suffer little children to come unto me 2. The reason for of such is the Kingdome of God Here is wont to be enquired 1. What moved these thus to present their children This by the Evangelists is expressed that Christ would put his hands upon them and pray Which as they requested so he condescended to answer He put his hands upon them and blessed them They looked upon Christ as it seemes as a great Prophet highly in favour with God and such were wont to bless in the name of God and their blessing was highly prized Hands were used to be imposed as in sacrifices Exod. 29. 10. so on persons in blessing Gen. 48 14. The reason that moved his Disciples to forbid their coming can scarce be doubted They saw men resorting to Christ either moved by his Doctrine or his Miracles either to be instructed or cured neither of these could be in their thoughts that presented these little ones They were uncapable of his teaching being infants and that they needed not his cure being not diseased and therefore they rebuked those that came to tender them Now to come to a clear understanding of the words we shall lay first some positions concerning these Infants admission and afterwards come to the consideration of the reason First That these were Infants or as Infants in an incapacity to learne ought from Christ and so actually to imbrace Christ or enter Covenant themselves with him Which does appear 1. In that they are called little ones 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. They were brought and came not on their own accord 3. In that Christ took them up in his armes 4. Had they been capable by age of instruction with what colour could any have denied them Why might not they come as well as those multitudes that flocked to him 5. Why were not the children themselves spoke to to forbear to come rather than those that brought them not to bring them If they were capable of instruction they were capable of rebuke 6. Why is there no word of instruction spoken to them The young man that came to Christ was instructed by Christ in the same Chapter So should these have been instructed as well as blest had they been in a capacity for instruction Secondly As they were in an incapacity by reason of age to be taught so they were not as was said diseased to have need of cure This the Disciples well knew that this was usual with Christ to cure those that laboured under infirmities of all ages and therefore would never have had it in their thoughts to have rebuked those that brought these and the Evangelist would never have concealed this reason and mentioned another Such a thing as this I said was vented in a Manuscript but I knew not that ever any print had maintained it Now I am told that there is a book in Folio entituled Baby Baptisme meere Babisme that doth assert it If any man will trouble himself with the book
both those This is proved because our Saviour from their estate inferres a likenesse to them in others for the same estate Apolog p. 150. This Argument what colour soever it carries yet it is not conclusive It may be taken more largely in Christs argumentation and in a more restrained sense in his words of Instruction or Application as in a place much parallel I shall shew 1 Cor. 6. 1 2. There we have the Apostles reproof vers 1. and his reason vers 2. as in the Evangelists we have Christs assertion confirming his reproof ver 14. and his application ver 15. Now Saint in the Apostles reproof is taken more largly than it is taken in his reason A visible Saint is meant in the first place a real and glorified Saint in the second visible Saints may judge in small matters for real Saints in glory shall judge the world shall judge Angels and so it may be here infants have their present title to the visible Kingdome and men qualified as infants shall only enter the Kingdome of Glory His second reason that Christ directs his speech to the Disciples already in the visible Church and therefore speaks not of the Church visible I know not how to make up into a reason If I understood it I would either yield or answer it The third reason that the speech Mark 10. 15 Luke 18. 17. is like Mat. 18. 3 4. but there it is meant of the Kingdome of Glory Ergo so here is answered already If Mark 10. 15. Luke 18. 17. be like Matth. 18 3 4. yet Mark 10. 14. Luke 18. 16. which we have in question is unlike to Matth. 18. 3 4. Thirdly Were it granted him that the Kingdome of Glory must be understood both in Christs reason and application yet he is nothing holpen Infants have right to the Church visible militant because they are in a capacity of entrance into the Church triumphant Acts 2. 47. The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved Not necessarily saved but now having entered Covenant with God they were in a capacity and therefore added as visible Church-members Infants standing in this capacity ought to have admission likewise It is said that if this proposition were granted that they have right to the Church visible militant who shall be of the Church triumphant yet this right cannot be claimed but by those who are elect and therefore from these Scriptures so expounded it cannot be proved that any other than elect infants are to be baptized Answ If election or non-election must steere us in admission to Baptisme this were to purpose interposed but when there is nothing that can be objected against them as hindring their salvation it is sufficiently proved that it may not hinder their Baptisme That must not be pleaded against any as a barre to hinder their admission into the Church on earth that will not hinder their admission into the Church in heaven CHAP. LIV. Reasons evincing the Birth-priviledge and Covenant-holinesse of the issue of Beleevers HAving already so largely insisted upon by Scripture proofs that children are in covenant with parents and that priviledges of Ordinances which necessarily imply a covenant do descend to posterity I shall lay down certain grounds some of them making way towards and others necessarily inferring of themselves the conclusion First This is of the nature of those things which descend from Parent to childe from Ancestors to Posterity which is in their power to convey to their issue There are those things indeed which are personally inherent in men and proper to them so that they cannot convey them to their issue there is no deriving of them to others by succession As 1. Individual accidents of the body wounds scarres or comelinesse of feature these are so in the Parent that they are not conveyed to their children 2. Habits or proper gifts whether acquired by pains or infused The son of a learned man inherits not his fathers gifts The son of an Artificer is no such Artist The son of a Prophet hath not by vertue of birth the gift of prophecy nor is the son of a regenerate man endowed with saving grace for that reason There are on the contrary those things that passe from Parent to childe which the Parent by nature or special priviledge hath power to convey As 1. The essential or integral part of a Species with the natural properties that do accompany it so one brute beast brings forth another one brid brings for another and man brings forth one of mankind 2. The priviledges or burdens which in Family or Nation are hereditary they are conveyed from Parents to Posterity from Ancestors to their issue As is the Father so is the child as respecting these particulars This none have questioned and these things in hand being of the same nature it is a faire propable ground of it self if evidence to the contrary from Scripture be not cleare that they are thus still transmitted Secondly It is so in Kingdomes Common-wealths Cities in Corporations Families The son of a Noble man is Noble of a Free-man is Free Acts 22. 28. As the sonne of a bond-man where by the Law of Nations they are bond men is a bond-man likewise Exod. 21. 4. Now we know that in Scripture the Church of God is frequently stiled by these names By the most honourable of them Mat. 8. 11 12. Mat. 21. 43. Ephes 2. 19. Hebrewes 12. 22. Ephesians 3. 15. to let us understand that as Cities Kingdomes Families have their priviledges so the people of God in covenant have theirs â—ikewise But we are told Object You do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like civil Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth whereas in this all is done by free Election of grace and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnal respects as descent from men Christianity is no mans birth-right Protestant Divines are taken up by the Jesuites in the self same way for this very thing A Lapide on 1 Cor. 7. 14. saith Hence Calvin and Beza have drawn their opinion of a birth-righteousnesse and say that the children of Beleevers are holy and saved without Baptisme because on this account that they are Beleevers children they are reputed to be born in the Church within that Divine covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17. 7. As children in the civil Law are accounted free whose parents are either of them free but saith he they are deceived and gives his reason The Church is not a civil Common-wealth but supernatural and there is no man born a Christian but spiritually new borne and is made holy not civilly but really by faith hope and charity infused into the soul So Stapleton on the same words in his Antidotum applying the Spiritual Antidote against Calvins Carnal Poyson saith
That Jewes carnally descended from Abraham or the children of Christians may be made partakers of the Covenant entered of God with Abraham Birth according to the flesh does nothing So also Bellarmine speaking of the covenant with Abraham saith It descends to us not by carnal but spiritual generation So that these men have sucked the spiritual meaning from the Jesuites and Master Marshal holds to the carnal imaginations of Protestant Reformers They produce many Texts of Scripture where this Birth-priviledge in their thoughts is evidently set forth Jesuites contradict it and upon this account it is a carnal imagination to conceive it The Apostle knew not saith one that God had so by promise Object or other engagement bound himself but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham to have mercy on whom he would Rom. 9. 15. If this be meant of any engagement of God to confer saving graces or habitual qualifications on the natural seed of Beleevers the words then carry reason with them But neither he nor his great friends will learn to distinguish between Gods conditional covenant contained in priviledges of Ordinances and habitual saving graces otherwise they know from Moses that God exercised this freedome in making choise of Israel above all Nations and that the Apostle knew and in the same Chapter lets us know Rom. 9. 4. that to them pertained the covenants and that this was their prerogative for Birth-priviledge Rom. 3. 1. We say the son of a Free-man is Free the son of a Noble-man is Noble we never said that the son of a Learned-man is Learned we say that the son of a Christian is a Christian as to interest in Ordinances We never said that the son of a Regenerate man is Regenerate It is further urged Object If this were true that the covenant of Grace is a birth-right-priviledge then the children of Beleevers are children of Grace by nature for that which is a birth-right-priviledge is a priviledge by nature And if Christianity is hereditary that as the child of a Nobleman is Noble the child of a Free-man is Free the child of a Turk is a Turk of a Jew a Jew the child of a Christian is a Christian Then Christians are born Christians and not made Christians and how are they then children of wrath by nature which whether it may not advantage the Pelagians and deniers of Original sinne it concernes those that use such speeches to consider To this I answer It concernes those that presse these objections to see how Chamier Paraeus and other Protestant Writers answer them when they are in their very words urged by Jesuites If they can reconcile Galat. 2. 15. with Ephes 2. 3. then they have an answer The Apostle was by birth of the people of God in covenant and yet by nature a childe of wrath It is further said Object To conceive that it is in Gods Churches as in other Kingdomes and after the Lawes of Nations is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errours It is well that they have learned an Artifice from these superstition-hating Jesuites to keep out the inlet of superstition among us if there were no parallel held betwixt the Church of God and other Kingdomes after the manner of the Law of Nations but such that are Seminaries of superstition they may do well to acquaint us how it comes to passe that the Curch in Scripture hath the name of a City Family Kingdome Similitudes ever carry some resemblance If this were the alone ground on which the Birth-priviledge of Christians were bottomed they had said something but being only an illustration of it and nothing more they are over lavish in their censure Similitudes indeed may be over-stretched beyond their reach and if they had laid down rules to declare where the Similitude holds and where it holds not as I have done in the Birth-priviledge and made it appear that it holds not in that for which I produce it they had said somewhat to the purpose Read Mal. 1. 6 8 14. and tell me whether there be any ground laid for dangerous superstitions Thirdly It is so in all other Religions they keep up their priviledge of interest in the worship of their Ancestors The childe of a Turke is a Turke the childe of a Pagan is a Pagan the child of a Jew is a Jew And it is the Apostles Argument in like case respective to Ecclesiastical communion that because Sacramental communion rendered them one Ecclesiastical body with Christians so communion in worship will make one body with those of other Religions 1 Cor. 10. 17 18 19. See Paraeus on the words and Cudworths True notion of the Lords Supper There are common principles that are the same in all Religions and we must beleeve them to hold unlesse Scripture hold forth a difference Fourthly God ownes children born in the Church as by birth his his servants Levit. 25. 39 40 41 42. If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor and be sold unto thee thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant but as an hired servant and as a sojourner he shall be with thee and shall serve thee unto the year of Jubile And then shall he depart from thee both he and his children with him and shall return unto his own family and unto the possession of his fathers shall he returne For they are my servants Root and Branch Parent and childe are servants of God As they were the servants of their Master when they could do them actually no service by reason of their relation to them so they are the servants of God on the same account And as he owns them as his servants so also he ownes them as by birth his children Ezek. 16. 20 21. Moreover thou hast taken thy sonnes and thy daughters whom thou hast borne unto me and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured Is this of thy Whoredomes a small matter That thou hast slain my children and delivered them to cause them to passe through the fire for them If there were no Birth-priviledge how had God this property in Infants and this David pleads Ps 116. 16. O Lord I am thy servant truly I am thy servant and the son of thy hand-maid because he was borne in Gods house and was a childe of a servant of his he pleads his interest Fifthly If the child be not in covenant the parent and childe are heterogeneal and respective to Church-relation in the most opposite condition the Parent in the Kingdom of God by vertue of the faith that he professes the childe in the Kingdome of Satan by reason of his non-interest in the Promise and want of title to Covenant-relation But Scripture makes them still as one Jewes children are Jewes by nature Gentiles children are sinners that is Gentiles by nature The Root being holy the Branches are holy Parents not sanctified children are unclean but Parents
being sanctified they are holy Sixthly If children be not taken into Covenant with their parents then the most godly of Parents bring up children not in covenant but for a covenant not in any present interest of relation to God but at best in an hopeful expectation of it They bring not forth children to God but at best they have their desires to traine them for such a future visible relation But there is no such example in all Scripture of a parent in covenant training up the seed of their bodies for a covenant No one in all New Testament-Scripture ever bred up a childe in yeares to baptize him no more than in Old Testament-Scriptures they bred their children to circumcise them we read of many baptized in years but we read of none borne of Christian parents kept till yeares of discretion to be baptized Seventhly If children be not received into covenant with their parents but stand without covenant and in no right of Church-membership then they are without any Scripture-ground of hope of salvation then they are as all others that are out of covenant without Christ without God without hope And because some have risen up against this Argument with high clamours though hitherto with feeble or rather no reasons I shall somewhat more enlarge my self in confirmation of it That which the prime authours of and chiefest sticklers for the non-federation of infants freely confesse which the general consent of their adversaries Protestant Writers unanimously upon Scripture grounds conclude that the present Patrons can maintain with nothing but clamours and such reasons improved to the highest which will equally conclude the hopes of the greatest Drunkards Idolaters Adulterers Heathens that must be taken for an Argument of force and a reason conclusive this cannot be denyed But so it is here as I shall make good in several particulars 1. Those of the Church of Rome that have stood up against Infants covenant-holinesse do confesse that all infants going out of the world as they came into the world in that estate perish and so have provided a chamber in hell which they call by the name of Limbus Infantum and now since their Limbus Patrum by Christs death is made empty by the fetching out all that were there in expectation of him and the number of infants thus dying increasing it is said by some that these two are laid together howsoever it falls out with these places about which we have no reason to busie our selves this position that infants thus dying without any covenant or Church-interest do perish followes as directly from their principles as any conclusion from its premises 2. Protestant Divines who assert Infant-salvation and beleeve no such division of hell into chambers and have other thoughts of the condition of Infants still bring this interest of theirs in the covenant of God as their ground not prying into the secrets of Election nor urging prerogative above that which is written the covenant of God Gen. 17. 7. confirmed by the New Testament-Scriptures before mentioned They very well know that in case Papists can wrest this covenant-interest of infants from them they conclude according to Scripture-ground their damnation Luke tells us there were daily added to the Church such as should be saved namely to the Church visible as the Text is clear Acts 2. 47. Now if they stand not admitible into the Church they stand without hope of salvation see how the Apostle joynes these together Ephes 2. 12. Without Christ being aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel and strangers from the Covenants of Promise having no hope and without God in the world If any can conclude against the interest of any in the Common-wealth of Israel that is the Church of God and the covenants of promise which those do that will have them to be no Church-members nor to be taken into covenant with Parents they sadly doome them to be without Christ without God without Hope Those that disclaime Zuinglius his opinion that Hercules Socrates Aristides Numa and such like Heathens are now in heaven would be desired to shew how they cast those out upon that account as Heathens and take in infants as great strangers according to them to any Church-interest Infants want not sin for condemnation our first Original estate being a corrupt estate and by nature children of wrath and putting them out of covenant they can finde no Scripture-way to entitle them to Christ for redemption They seeme to conceive other hopes of the salvation of infants of Heathens that upon the same ground they may be charitable to the infants of Christians that with them are in the same posture with Heathens when they speak of Hercules and other Heathens as before yet speaking of the infants of Heathens they say It is bad to say that God doth not save some of the infants of Indians pro bene placito according to his good pleasure For any warrant we can finde in Scripture it is as bad to say it of the parent as of the childe The Scriptures leave the whole of the Family root and branch under the fury and wrath of God Jeremiah 10. 25. Psal 79. 6. 3. The present Patrons of this non-federation of infants can maintaine their salvation with nothing but clamours and such reasons improved to the highest that equally conclude the salvation of the greatest drunkards adulterers idolaters Heathens I shall now purposely for peace sake passe by those high clamors and bitter invectives that we meet with on this occasion and come to take notice of the reasons produced to exempt infants from this doom of condemnation and all that I can find is one and the same thing to fly for refuge to prerogative This is my judgement saith one that God will have us to suspend our judgment of this matter and Rest on the Apostles determination Rom. 9. 18. For satisfaction of which I need to adde no more than what I have said page 15. of my Answer seeing it rests not one word yet replied to it The Text of Scripture which we have over and over is that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy telling his adversary that it is bad to say that God doth not save pro bene placito which no adversary of his will deny But God is pleased in his Word to make known the way of the dispensation of his mercy otherwise the vilest person against whom in our ministerial way we denounce Gods judgments may reply that his hope of salvation is as good as the best for God saves ex bene placito and hath mercy on whom he will have mercy and the best soul in a case of disertion will take off all his applications of comfort with the close of that Scripture And whom he will he hardeneth Rom. 9. 18. And so the Jews even in their rejection of which the Apostle speaks so largely being cut off by unbelief might have pleaded their hope
of salvation as well as in a beleeving condition we must therefore not look to the secret Will of God of which no reason can be given but his good pleasure but into his revealed Will where he is pleased to make known the dispensation of this will and good pleasure of his and so we shall learn not to carry our hopes beyond his promise To that Text of the Apostle Eph◠〈◊〉 12. In which all out of Covenant are concluded to be with 〈…〉 It is said Though the Gentiles were without hope Eph◠〈◊〉 12. in respect of the body of them yet now and then God called some as Rahab out of the visible Church and therefore we may not determine universally that out of the visible Church there is no salvation at all But when Rahab was thus called she was no more a Gentile as appears Ephes 2. 11. as the Ephesians had been but in present were no Gentiles so also it was with her neither she nor they were saved out of the Church but brought into the Church for salvation CHAP. LV. A Corollary for Infants Baptism Infant-Baptism by Arguments asserted THen it follows by way of necessary Corollary that Infants have right to Baptism children of baptized parents are entitled to that Ordinance First those that have been Church-members and admitted with the initiating sign and seal are yet to be admitted unlesse order be given to the contrary But Infants have been Church-members and accordingly admitted by the initiating sign and seal neither is there any order for the contrary Therefore Infants are Church-membes and still to be admitted Secondly Those that are under the Covenant-promises of God with the body of his people have right to Baptism Acts. 2. 39. But Infants are under the Covenant-promises of God with the body of his people Infants therefore have right to Baptism Thirdly Saints or holy persons have right to Baptism Infants are Saints they are holy persons Rom. 11. 1â— â— Cor. 7. 14. Infants therefore have right to Baptism Fourthly They that by birth according to the flesh are in the bosome of the Church have right to Baptism But Infants by birth according to the flesh are in the bosome of the Church Gal. 4. 29. Infants therefore ought to be baptized Fifthly They that are admitted to Church-priviledges have right to Baptism the leading priviledge But Infants are admitted to Church-priviledges Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. 14. Luke 18. 16. Infants therefore have right to Baptism Sixtly The children of the Kingdome that with others make up the Kingdome of God have right to Baptism But Infants are the children of the Kingdome that with others make up the Kingdome of God Mark 10. 14. Matth. 19. 14. Luke 18. 16. Infants therefore have right to Baptism Seventhly The heritage of the Lord are to be admitted to Baptism But Infants are the heritage of the Lord Psal 127. 3. therefore Infants are to be admitted to baptism Eightly Those that are to be saved are to be added to the Church by baptism Acts 2. 47. Infants are to be saved and therefore are to be added to the Church by Baptism In all of these Syllogismes the minor is at large confirmed in the discourse before going the major in each shall presently be at large confirmed and so the conclusion will be undenyable Here it is objected with no small noise that Infant-baptisme wants an institution we find no command for it in all New Testament-Scripture where our warrant alone is for New Testament-Ordinances Neither have we any example in the New Testament of an Infant baptized whatsoever then our Arguments are this concludes it to be without warrant To speak to these and first to the institution The institution spoken to in this objection either is an institution of the Ordinance of Baptism it self or else an institution with limit to Infant-age For Baptism it self they will not deny that we have warrant in the New Testament John was sent to baptize in the Nation of the Jews John 1. 33. and the Apostles have theâ— commission Matth. 28. 19. to baptize all Nations For an institution with limit to Infant-age we heard but even now there was no institution in the Old Testament for Infant-Circumcision The institution Gen. 17. 10. is for males without limit in respect of growth I am sure it cannot be affirmed that there is any institution of Baptism in the New Testament with limit to any determinate age or growth This obâ—ection if it have force in it followed home will overthrow all Baptism at any age and every other New Testament-Ordinance whatsoever Suppose a man of 20 25 30 40 50. years of age seeketh Baptism According to this rule he must bring a prescript for one of this age to be baptized and the same also for the Lords Supper But it is replied Beleevers of any age may be baptized beleeve and the age is not regarded This will be easily yielded if they be not already baptized but then the institution with limit to Infancy is waved and upon the same account Church-Members in Covenant of any age ought to be baptized and so the institution is not in question about that there is an agreement But whether Infants be in Covenant or whether they be any Church-Members is to be disputed which already is satisfied 2. I say those words of our Saviour Matth. 28. 19. Disciple all Nations baptizing them c. do comprize Infants in them as well as men of years Infants serving to make up a Nation as well as Parents The Infants of Nineveh did make a considerable party of the City of Nineveh The Infants of any Nation make up a part of the Nation and the Nation where they came was to be discipled and baptized And that Infants are here comprehended farther appears by this Argument In the same sense and latitude as Nation was taken in respect of the Covenant of God when the Covenant and Covenant-initiating Sacrament was restrained to that one onely Nation where theâ—r commission was first limited In the same sense it is to be taken unlesse the Text expresse the contrary now the commission is enlarged This cannot be denyed of any that will have the Apostles to be able to know Christs meaning by his words in this enlarged commission But Nation then as is confessed did comprehend all in the Nation in respect of the Covenant and nothing is expressed in the Text to the contrary therefore it is to be taken in that latitude to comprehend Infants This Argument hath strength from that of the Apostle Acts 3. â—5 Yea are the children of the Prophets and of the Covenant which God made with our fathers saying unto Abraham and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed As it was with the kindred of Abraham in respect of Covenant-holinesse so it is with all kindreds of the earth they joyntly make one party in the Covenant But Infants of Abrahams kindred were in the Covenant and
are under the same covenant as was Isaac to whom the promises were made If some of Abrahams children were left out that concerns not us so that we are taken in yet the instance is very weak to prove it As appeares saith he verse 19. concerning Ishmael and Heb. 11. 9. that Ishmael was himself in covenant though not established in covenant as God there and verse 21. promised concerning Isaac not his seed never received appeares not alone by the signe and seale which he received verse 23. which yet is sufficient for God to seale to a blanke is very strange to signe a covenant to a man never in covenant but also from Gal. 4. 30. What saith the Scripture Cast out the bond-woman and her sonne for the sonne of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the sonne of the free-woman A man cast out of covenant was before casting out in covenant Ejection supposes admission unlesse we will give way to our Authors dreame of Ejection by non-admission He was cast out after the time of the solemnity of his admission by circumcision as may be seen Gen 22. For that of Heb. 11. 9. it is a mystery what he will make of it unlesse he will conclude that because Abraham sojourned in the land of Promise that therefore none were in covenant that were not taken into that land so Moses and Aaron will be found out of covenant It is further said As for a visible Church-seed of Abraham that is neither his seed by nature nor by saving faith nor by excellency in whom the Nations of the Earth should be blessed to wit Christ I know none such in Scripture therefore some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed as it is called I know not how saving faith comes in when a faith of profession will serve the turne The whole of Abrahams seed had circumcision as a seale of the righteousnesse of faith when many of their Parents had no more than a faith of profession Fourthly Were all these things yielded yet the Proposition as is said would not be made good from hence All these we see are made good against his exceptions Let us now see the strength which is reserved for the last push for overthrow of this Proposition The inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seale as if the covenant or promise of it self did give that but the inference is concerning Abrahams duty that therefore he should be the more engaged to circumcise his posterity This should rather have been left to us for the strengthening of our proposition than have made use of it himself for refutation of it It was Abrahams duty to give them according to Gods command the initial Seale in this we are agreed whether it will thence follow that they had right and title to it or were without right let the Reader determine It is further said He was engaged to circumcise onely those that are males and not afore eight dayes and not onely those that were from himself but also all in his house whose children soever they were which apparently shewes that the giving Circumcision was not commensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant but was to be given to persons as well out of the Covenant as in If of Abrahams house and not to all that were in the Covenant to wit Females which doth clearly prove that right to the initiall Seale as it is called of circumcision did not belong to persons by vertue of the covenant but by force of the command If it could be proved that Abraham kept Idolaters in his house professedly worshipping a false god and gave circumcision to them in that faith and way of false worship it would prove that a man might have the seale and not be in covenant but it would not prove that he might be in covenant and be denied the Seale and then infant-Baptisme might be of easier proof Though they were not in covenant though they were not holy yet they might be baptized But I will not yield so much I do not believe that Abraham carried circumcision beyond the line of the covenant and that he had those in his house which were aliens from God seeing I finde that Testimony of the Lord concerning him Gen. 18. 19. For I know him that he will command his children and his houshold after him and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgement that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him And that resolution of Joshua That if others would serve the gods that their fathers served that were on the other side the floud or the gods of the Amorites in whose land they dwell yet he and his house would serve the Lord Josh 24. 14 15. As it is a private mans duty to serve the Lord and not Idols so it is the Master of the Families duty to see that the Lord and not Idols be worshipped in his house As I do beleeve that if any of our adversaries had a profest Heathen in his Family he would not keep him there and not chatechize him and that he would not during his profession of Heathenisme baptize him So I beleeve concerning Abraham He catechized all that he took in as Heathens and did not circumcise them in their Heathenisme This some Paedobaptists as is said are forced to confesse when they grant the formal reason of the Jewes being circumcised was the command and the covenant he makes only a motive I wonder what need there is of an Argument to force such a confession The reason I say why Jewes were circumcised and Christians baptized is the command were there a thousand covenants and no institution of a signe or seale such a signe or seale there could have been no circumcision nor no Baptisme The command is the ground and the covenant is the directory to whom application si to be made We say all in covenant are entituled to the Seale for admission but we pre-suppose an institution They will have all Beleevers and all Disciples baptized which they cannot conclude upon their faith and knowledge barely but upon the command to baptize Beleevers and Disciples So that the command is with reference to the covenant with reference to interest in the covenant From these foregoing exceptions a conclusion is drawne that all this doth fully shew that the proof of the connexion between and the initial Seale without a particular command for it is without any weight in it And I conclude that it fully shewes that the proof of the connexion between the covenant and the initial Seale pre-supposing the institution of such a Seale and a general command is of that weight that all are meere frivolous trifles that are brought for exceptions against it Another Scripture holding out the connexion between the covenant and initial seale is Acts 2. 38 39. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sinnes
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call Here I must mind the Reader of that which I have already spoken on this text concerning this text Chap. On which words after a brief Analasis which there may be seen I have grounded this argument They to whom the covenant of promise appertains have right to Baptisme But the covenant of promise belongs to men in a Church-state and condition together with their children therefore those that are in a Church-state and condition have right to Baptisme together with their children My businesse being then to assert the just latitude of the covenant without respect to Baptisme or any other seale I spoke only to the minor proposition that the covenant extends it selfe not alone to men professedly in a Church-state but also to their children with them and to that I think I have there spoke sufficient Now I am put upon the proof of the major That they to whom the covenant of the promise appertaines have right to baptisme If this faile it must be confest that the ground of infant-Baptisme as to this Text falls with it seeing their right is not asserted quâ infants no more than the right of men of growth or men of yeares quâ of growth or in yeares but as they stand in reference to God in coventnt and this is clear in the Text. Be baptized for the promise is to you and to your children Because they are vested in the promise they have their right and interest in the seale If this do not hold the Apostles argument falls to evade this full and cleare argument one is bold to say that in the expounding of these words there are almost as many mistakes as words when words are only brought to convince us of so many mistakes though in a multiplication of exceptions First The Exposition is commonly carried as if the promise there meant were the promise Gen. 17. 7. To Abraham and his seed and this expounded as if it were meant that God would be a God to every Believer and to his seed in respect at least of visible Church-Membership When a promise is mentioned and a seale any man but he will presently understand that promise which is raâ—ified by such a seale For discovery of their mistake that make any other reference of it I shall referre the Reader to what I have said on these words Chap 48. and to Master Cobbets Vindication Part. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 3. Secondly it is said They expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Acts 2. 39. as if it were a promise of a thing to come some outward priviledg to be conferred on them and their children whereas the chief thing meant in the speech iâ— that as is expressly said by Paul Acts 13. 32 33. Yet no man is quoted for this Exposition of a thing to come but on the contrary quotes Master Cobbet against it It is meant of a present right for as yet they were not broken off from the Olive not Gentiles gâ—â—â—fed in in the instead Thirdly It is said It is taken as if to you were meant of those persons to whom he spake as then Believers and under that formal consideration and then reasons are brought against it I do not interpret it of any present explicite Faith in Christ as the Messiah though now this conviction that so evidently appeared did evidence them to be in an hopeful way and with that Scribe not to be far from the Kingdome of God and therefore he takes his opportunity and presseth it on to come into the way of Believers in Christ Jesus Fourthly It is said your children is expounded of their Infant-children yea it is carried as if of them only To thiâ— is sufficient spoken Chap 48. As for that which follows They would have the promise to be to their children as theirs whether they be called or no which can be verified only in their sense of their infants sith they maintain that even the children of Beleevers are not in covenant the promise is not to them they are not visible Church-members when they come to years of discretion except they be called in their own persons and accept the call Children as theirs whether they be called or no is a contradiction Children are called in their Parents call and we say they are in covenant the Promise is made to them they are visible Church-members till they reject the covenant and deny their Membership this is a calumny Fifthly He sayes Whereas it is urged that when it is said the promise is to all that are afarre off even as many as the Lord our God shall call which is expounded of the Gentiles it is not added to their children To this in the same chapter sufficient is spoken A sixth is the same with the tenth and thither I shall refer the Reader Seventhly It is said And in like manner we hold the command Be babtized every one of you in a covenantâ—sense that is a new devised nonâ—sense such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by be baptized you and your children I am sure here is a non-sense devise to talk of Dictionaries does Calepin or Scapula Rider or Thomasius help us to compare covenant and seale promises and Sacraments Eighthly It is said Some would possesse people with this conceit as if Peters scope were to take away by ver 39. an objection or scruple they would make If we be baptized our selves our children shall be in worse case in respect of the priviledge our children had in the former dispensation of the covenant when they had the sâ—al of the covenant if they be not to be baptized also and that he answers them by assuring them that in this dispensation also their children were in covenant and were to have the seale of the covenant And then addes There is not a word of any such scruple in the Text nor iâ— iâ— likely that they were sollicitous about such an imaginary poor priviledge of their children I am of the same mind that there was no such scruple in their heads This unhappy conceit of casting the seed out of covenant was not then in being though I think the reason given is little to purpose Ninthly He sayes They all do most grossely abuse the meaning of the Apostle in interpreting the inference of the Apostle signified by the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for vers 39. which they would have to be this you have right and warâ—ant to be baptized For the promise is to you and your children as if the illative particle did inferre a warrant or right for them and theirs to be baptized whereas the thing inferred is not any right which in a legal way they might claime but is a plaine motive in a moral way urged to perswade them to be baptized They do grossely abuse their own
to doubting Christians First A life in distrust of God and rebellion against God provoking him to the highest punishment of the parents doth not divest the child of the title to the covenant and interest in the Sacrament of initiation into the number of Christians For proof of this look upon that act of Joshua when the people were got out of the Wildernesse and were brought into the Land of Canaan Josh 5. 6 7. The children of Israel walked fourty yeers in the Wildernesse till all the people that were men of warre that came out of Egypt were consumed because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord And the children which he raised up in their stead them did Joshua circumcise for they were uncircumcised they had not circumcised them in the way you see what the fathers were yet the children Joshua ordered to be circumcised Concerning their conversation the parents were enemies but as touching the election the choice made of God the issue is to be numbred among the beloved Who had a worse father than Josiah yet where was there a better son A circumcised man who in youth began to seek the God of his father David 2 Chron. 34. 3. Secondly Misbelief in a parent divests not the issue of this birth-priviledge though the father erre in the faith yet the child is not to be shut out of the number of beleevers We have in this particular the Apostle for a precedent had misbelief in the parent denuded the childe of this priviledge Saint Paul had not beene a Jew by nature but an Heretick or Sectary by nature being before conversion a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee Scribe was a name of office but Pharisee the name of a Sect and therefore Christ warns to beware of the leaven that is of the Doctrine of the Pharisees as of the Sadduces Such was Pauls parentage and yet by descent and off-spring he is of the people of the Jewes What we say of Pharisees is as true of Sadduces It is not to be doubted but they were circumcised persons and entitled their children according to the Directory in Scripture for circumcision as appears by their embodying of themselves with the people of the Jewes Matth. 22. 23. Acts 23. 6. The most strict of Pharisees took them into their society which they had not done had they not been men of the circumcision we see the accusation charged on Peter on this occasion Acts 11. 2 3. A man transmits not his errors nor his vices no more than he doth his graces Thirdly ignorance of needful truths in a parent doth not divest the childe of this priviledge Those were the people of God and therefore brought forth children to God that did perish for lack of knowledge Hosea 4. 6. that went into captivity for lack of knowledge Isa 5. A reverend brother giving his reasons why he is among his brethren singular in this point not baptizing all born in his Parish one maine one is the grosse ignorance among them and that as he sayes not in Cumberland and those parts but in Essex such that if he should print his Reader would scaree beleeve it were possible to be true To which I only say I wish that our own experience in the places where we live did give us occasion of suspition that any wrong is done them Therefore to let the truth passe unquestioned I would only wish him to consider whether there might not have been found the like in Corinth that Church of the Saints 1 Cor. 15. 34. Some have not the knowledge of God I speak this to your shame Whether there he might not have found the like among the illuminated Hebrews were not there those that were dull of hearing that when for the time they ought to be teachers they had need that one teach them againe which be the first principles of the Oracles of God and were become such as had need of milke and not of strong meat yet these were of the Church and therefore with them their children Fourthly illegitimation of birth adulterous copulation in the parents divesteth not such issue of this priviledge David had never in that manner sought in fasting and prayer his childes life had he believed that he must not have been of the seed of the Jews but of the uncircumcised Heathen Pharez was of such a birth yet who bore a greater name and glory in Israel than he and his family even where the illegitimation of his birth is noted there the glory of his race is magnified which is yet farther honoured in that Christ according to the flesh was made of his seed That seed of Abraham per eminentiam was out of his loynes Jepthah indeed was driven out by his brethren but not because that he was not of the seed of the Jews and people of God but because they would not have him to share of the inheritance among them A Reverend Divine saith Objections an ∣ swered That some persons may be notorious offenders as known Atheists mockers of Religion Idolaters Papists Hereticks Witches and yet professe before men the faith seemes to him to imply a contradiction These I confesse are plausible words to take with well-meaning souls that attend not to the language of the Scripture in this particular And for the first if he meanes Atheists in judgement that professedly maintaine in word what Davids fool said in his heart that there is no God and by mockers of Religion not those alone that oppose the power but with Lucian all notion of Religion and by Idolaters those that professedly worship false gods and worship not at all the Lord Jehovah then it cannot be denied that this is a contradiction But Reverend Master Rutherford whom he opposeth in that place hath no such meaning But for an Atheist in life to be a professour of the faith we have Paul expressely for it Titus 1. 16. They professe that they know God but in works they deny him being abominable and disobedient and unto every good work reprobate The Apostle we see saw no contradiction in it and for mockers of Religion Peter did not foretell them to be out of the Church but within the bosome of it when he said There shall come in the last dayes scoffers walking after their own lusts 2 Pet. 3 3. For Idolaters if an Israelite might be an Idolater then a Christian How high were those in Idolatry mentioned Psal 106. 36 37 38 39 and yet in covenant ver 45. For the Church of Corinth the Apostle is plaine A brother may be an Idolater 1 Cor. 5. 11. It is within the Church and not without where men escape death by plagues yet repent not of the works of their hands that they should not worship Devils and Idols of gold and silver and brasse and stone and of wood which neither can see nor heare nor walke Rev 9. 20. For Papists I marvel how they are distinguished from Idolaters and Hereticks for Hereticks as false Prophets were
of the Church of the Jewes so Hereticks are of the Church in Gospel-times 2 Pet. 2. 1. The Apostle tells the Elders of Ephesus Acts 20. 30. Of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them For Witches though there were a Law in Israel not to suffer a Witch to live Exod. 22. 18. Yet Israel had Witches as is seen in those that Saul put out of the Land and her that in his distresse he sought unto 1 Sam. 28. Paul had never reckoned up witchcraft among those sinnes that shut out of the Kingdome of heaven and certified the Churches of Galatia of it had there been an impossibility that any such should be found of their number that made claime to it This the Reverend Authour doth as much as acknowledge in the words that follow I deny not saith he but that in some sense any such notorious offendor may have the essence and being of a member of the Church as visible to wit in this sense a corrupt and rotten member fit to be cut off A member of the visible Church though formerly an inoffensive professor of the faith may afterwards fall away into any of these notorious scandals and yet for a while still retain the essence and being of a member of the Church as visible Master Rutherford that is there opposed I suppose will affirme no more Respective to the power of godlinesse there is in them no soundnesse nor yet in those that are better than these Some say that one that is such in any known foule sinne to them is no better than a Heathen as bad as a Turke or Pagan and nothing at all better for the name Christian And I say that to me they are as bad as to them and perhaps worse in the eyes of God This priviledge in which they stand thus interessed is an aggravation of their sinne and a farther provocation of God against them When the Lord saw it he abhorred them because of the provoking of his sonnes and of his daughters Deut. 32. 19. yet such is Gods long-suffering and forbearance of them that he is pleased to vouchsafe them farther and more large evidences of his favour Nehem. 9. 30. Hierusalem was corrupted more than Sodom and Samaria in all her wayes Ezek. 16. 47. Sodom and her daughters had not done as Hierusalem and her daughters ver 48. Samaria had not committed halfe her sinnes ver 51. In her abominations she had justified both of them yet Hierusalem enjoyed those priviledges that Samaria and Sodom enjoyed not Hierusalem was in covenant ver 16. when Sodom and Samaria were no covenant-people but worshipped they knew not what John 4. ver 22. Corazin and Bethsaida Cities of Israel were no better in the eye of God than Tyre and Sidon yea their sinnes deserved an heavier weight of judgement Matth. 11. 22. It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sydon at the day of judgement than for you saith our Saviour and so it was with Capernaum compared to Sodom ver 23. yet Chorazin Bethsaida Capernaum enjoyed those priviledges from God that Tyre Sydon and Sodom wanted As the Apostles zeal against the Samaritanes sinnes Luke 9. 54 did out-strip our Saviours when they would have fire from heaven to consume them so our zeale out-goes Gods when we would have such men root and branch parent and child struck out of covenant before God hath sued out any Bill of divorce against them or removed his Candlestick and taken all covenant-priviledges from them For the baptism of children of Apostates there is a greater difficulty Some of reverend worth say They see not how justly a Parents Apostasy should deprive the childe of Baptisme and some Texts of Scripture seem strongly to favour that opinion Ezek. 16. 20 21. Moreover thou hast taken thy sonnes and thy daughters whom thou hast borne unto me and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured Is this of thy whoredomes a small matter that thou hast slain my children and delivered them to cause them to passe through the fire for them There could not be an higher evidence of Apostacy than to give their children in sacrifice to a false god It was one of the highest acts of obedience that Abraham could testifie to the Lord and yet these yield it to Idol-gods They bring forth children to God and give them to Moloch Psal 106. 35 36 37 38 39. They were mingled among the heathen and learned their works and they served their Idols which were a snare unto them yea they sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils And shod innocent blood even the blood of their sonnes and of their daughters whom they sacrificed unto the Idols of Canaan and the land was polluted with blood Thus were they defiled with their own works and went a whoring with their own inventions These in this apostatized from God in covenant yet God lookes upon them as a covenant people ver 45. And he remembred for them his covenant c. But this seemes to be but a partial Apostasy taking in the worship of Idols they did not totally cast off the worship of God A line of profession was still it seemes held up God was not wholly cast off in Judah They seem to be of those that swore by the Lord and Malcham Zeph. 1. 5. keeping up the worship of the true God and yet take in the worship of a false god with him As for those in whom Master Firmin instanceth our Englishmen now in Turkey apostatized from the Faith to that Religion concerning whom quaeres are often put it may seem equal that as a man comes into covenant and his posterity with him So totally rejecting the covenant denying God as well in profession as in his works that he and his posterity should be out of covenant Being before an holy root to transmit holinesse to his seed now he becomes unholy and put out of such capacity and is disabled from making over any such priviledge to them But here we need not to trouble our selves with the Baptisme of such having renounced Christ they baptize not their infants in his name A Minister shall have none of these rendered to him and to baptize them into this body when he well knowes they must be never suffered to be of it were an high taking of Gods name in vaine and a mockery of so sacred an Ordinance Now in case a grandfather shall take one of these children and offer it unto Baptisme and being a Progenitor shall undertake the education in the Christian Faith and not in the Turkish abomination whether in this case there be right to Baptisme is the question Now these may be looked upon either as meer Heathens in the same condition as if they never had an Ancestor in the Faith or else as issuing out of the loynes of mediate Ancestors believing and so coming from a root that hath been holy If considered in the former way they may have a title to
Baptisme according to many eminent Divines by vertue of their Adoption Reverend Master Cawdrey observes a three-fold way to circumcision from Gen. 17. One is personal upon profession of Faith in a mans own person so Abraham entered A second is paternal when a man comes in by right derived from his Parents so Isaac and Ishmael had title A third adoptive being taken into the family of a Beleever according to that Gen. 17. 12 13. He that is eight dayes old among you shall be circumcised every man childe in your generations be that is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed He that is borne in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised c. Any bondman that he would take and adopt into his family in such case had right of circumcision Riveâ— on Gen. 17. Exercit. 8â— is cleare of this judgement and sayes he remembers that it was so determined in the National Synods of the French Churches quoting in like manner Prosper in his second Book De vocatione gentium Chap. 8. Sometimes this priviledge is vouchsafed to the children of Infidels when by a secret providence they into the hands of the godly Master Cotton I remember in his book of Infant-Baptisme is for it Master Norton against Apollonius for present suspends his judgement page 38. I had rather go his way than theirs that determine it and in my thoughts with submission to better judgements I rather incline in present to the contrary Those that Abraham bought with his money I suppose were men of years who were to be circumcised and their issue But whether they were not first instructed is the question No uncircumcised person was to be in his house and whether he might compel to circumcision may well be disputed He found them explicitely in covenant with false gods and whether he might give them the seale of the covenant of the true God in that state I question It is said Gods covenant shall be in their flesh verse 13. and that this should be done and no covenant with the true God at all professedly in their mouth no notion of him by way of assent in their heart to me is strange I think it implies Abrahams work first in instructing of them in the covenant and upon their assent they were received and their seed with them Circumcision did denominate them a people of God and that is a strong contradiction to have them circumcised whose faith was in a false god and who applied themselves to such worship Their entrance I should rather take to be personal than adoptive Consider them then as descending from the loynes of Christian progenitors having fathers of their flesh heretofore in covenant with God and we shall finde them in a better condition than those Heathens that had ever been strangers And here the Apostle will help us to a distinction Rom. 11. 28. Speaking of the Jewes cut off from the body of the Church visible As concerning the Gospel saith he they are enemies for your sakes Their present condition is as Heathens being alienated from God by reason of unbelief of the Gospel which Apostasy of theirs hath given occasion to and made way for the calling of the Gentiles But as touching the Election they are friends saith he God hath respect to them not totally to reject them for their fathers sake for the covenant which he entered with and the love that he shewed unto their fore-fathers being beloved upon the account of their fathers When there is a father found to do them that office to take them out of the wild Olive to put them into the true Olive I do not doubt but that they have title Though Baptisme should be denied to infants respective to all predecessors pure Heathen notwithstanding Adoption which I will not determine yet the Apostle speaking so much in favour of Jewes even in their state of blindnesse respective to the hope of their future call I do not doubt but it might be vouchsafed upon this account of Adoption to an infant Jew if we can have any ground fairely to conclude his descent from Abraham much more where we can easily evidence a descent from parents that are Christian And this I hope is some explication of my meaning where in answer to the demand of an adversary I say That infants be capable of Baptism by descent from parents either within mans memory or beyond it when a line of profession holdi or is againe restored that the infants may be received into the visible Church and enjoy the saving Ordinances of Christ Jesus page 68. of my answer and some satisfaction to the question concerning the power of mediate Parents giving title to Baptisme where out of the case of total Apostasy there is small difficulty I shall conclude in the words of Rivet If a parent wants true Faith yet makes profession of it and in the external society of the Church is accounted a Beleever or hath been accounted heretofore under the Old Testament the infants borne of such parents are in covenant with them and partakers of the promise even upon this account because the promise was received of the Ancestors in behalfe of the posterity that should issue from them which the unbelief or hypocrisie of the immediate parent cannot make invalid as long as the infant cannot imitate the unbelief or hypocrisie of the parent CHAP. LIX A Defence of the former Doctrine respective to the latitude of Infant-Baptisme A Reverend Authour putting it to the Question Whether the Ministers of England are bound by the Word of God to baptize the children which say they beleeve in Jesus Christ but are grossely ignorant scandalous in their conversations scoffers at godlinesse and refuse to submit at Church-discipline determining it in the negative a work most candidly carried on must be ingeniously acknowledged yet a work in which the Authour appears rather diffident than confident more in suspition than assured of the verity of his own tenent or warranty of his present practice Sometimes he consesses himself at a disadvantage and comes very weakly off it page 13. Sometimes he calls for better fingers to untie the knot that he meets with page 32. Sometimes he even yeelds all as the state did stand not onely with the Jewes but also as it doth stand with us though it ought de jure to be otherwise page 34. Sometimes he professes not to deny any infants but to delay them page 42. Sometimes he sayes he had rather grapple with those who think he is too large than with those who judge him to be too streight page 43. Suspecting his errour as indeed it doth if Scripture may determine to lie on that hand I shall as briefly as may be take a view of it He premises two things page 1 2. for the clearing of the question First Premises two grounds on which he builds his discourse 2. Puts the Question
pleasure to keep parent and childe from the priviledge of Ordinances to have them passe as Heathens and Infidels yea believing godly men and their children at their courtesie must be reputed either of the number of dogges or of children this cannot be denied The majority of these have power at pleasure of admission of members And to be no Church-member with them is the same as to be a Turke or Indian page 9. And how different their judgements are who are fit to be received and who are to be denied is evident Some of no obscure note have affirmed though minded be contrary minded that to render a man capable of admission into Church-membership grace is not sufficient but he must have expressions and so a fathers slow tongue shall exclude his childe from admittance into the fellowship of the Saints when upon the other hand upon the bare account of his fathers glib tongue though there be scarce another commendable quality another may be received when these are not judged worthy of fellowship who are not of abilities to sit in judgemeut with the Congregation to admit members to passe sentence upon delinquents to judge of Doctrines not only to elect but to ordain Pastours and Church-Officers we may easily guesse how many they exclude as without whom Christ receives Such a way had it been taken had deprived the Church of an Hezekiah Josiah and many others in their age renowned How great a provocation is this to such children when once of growth to joyne with them with whom the Church rancks them and to oppose with the uttermost of fury such that after the revolution of so many generations inheriting that priviledge now do debarre them And how great an encouragement to joyne with such in all holinesse with whom they are honoured with these priviledges As to the second whether the Ministers of England are bound by the Word of God to baptize their children which say they beleeve in Jesus Christ but are grossely ignorant scandalous in their conversations scoffers at godlinesse and refuse to submit to Church-Discipline Our Authour puts a Question What parent do you mean the immediate parent onely or the predecessors For suppose the immediate parent be as your question mentions yet it may be the Grand-father or some of the predecessors have been godly And farther sayes I perceive diverse of our Divines help themselves here and some in discourse are content to lose that ground of the immediate parent and flie to this Though I see no reason that any should fly hither in hope of help yet it is strange to me that he should stand for the immediate parent excluding all mediate predecessours who hath said enough for their power in giving of this interest to the children He sayes I do administer the Seale of the covenant unto this childe by vertue of this parent according to that Command given to Abraham the father of Beleevers with whom when the Lord entered into covenant and laid the foundation of the Church visible in his family he took his seed into covenant with him and commanded that with him they should keepe that Seale of his covenant When God tooke Abraham into covenant and his seed with him it was not onely his immediate seed but the issue of his flesh at the greatest distance Gods covenant with Abraham Isaac and Jacob is mentioned in Gods apparition to Moses Exod. 3. 6. and was pleaded by Moses in his intercession with God for Israel Exod. 32. 13. Moses then and all Israel were in this confederation of Abraham yea all Israel in succeeding ages Levit. 26. 42. When the worst of Jewes make that plea that they are Abrahams seed the Lord Christ yields it John 8. 37. and the Apostle concludes a holinesse in the whole body upon that account that the root at such a distance Abraham Isaac and Jacob were holy Rom. 11. 16. I know not how we can bottome any thing upon the grand Charter of God made to Abraham and exclude the mediate parent from all power to conferre this interest upon posterity When Jacob calls Ephraim and Manasseh by the name of sonnes Gen. 48. 9. as a father gives his blessing to them putting his name and the names of his fathers Abraham and Isaac upon them ver 16. and 20. were they not to be reckoned for the sonnes and seed of Jacob doth not their mediate Parent as well as Joseph their immediate Father conferre an interest on them Mr. Hooker was before our Authour in this tenent and his grounds are fully answered by Mr. Caudrey in his Diatribe concerning infant-baptisme I shall onely take into consideration our Authors Reasons First he yields that England had Christians in Primitive-times Thousands of Martyrs under Dioclesian but after the waters grew brackish at Rome and brings it to us in England we held saith he the name Christianity under the Romish yoke till of late the State threw it off and then the people following the State concluding I doubt not but God had his number in those dark times but what were those few in comparison of the body of the people or predecessours since the time of the Gospel restored to its purity God hath wonderfully appeared in England but those who use the argument of predecessours runne very high Answ 1. If the waters grew brackish at Rome so that they gave their sent hither so did the waters of Judea and Jerusalem grow as brackish yea and of a worse savour in the dayes of Ahaz and at those times when they brought forth children to God and gave them to Moloch Ezek. 16. 20. 2. Neither do we look so farre back when we look back as farre as Dioclesian as the Jewes in Christ time as Paul that looked as farre as Abraham in his time yea himself stayes not till he come up to him we are not necessitated to look so high A pedigree in a shorter line as to this purpose will serve our turne we are not tied to make it out that our Progenitors were really godly to conferre such covenant-interest upon us Primitive-Christians were admitted upon the account of Profession by our Authours confession and not upon the account of reality of godlinesse and they gave their posterity interest We see how much reverend Master Hooker speaking the opinion of his party gives to the Churches connivance negligence or indulgence in this thing If the Church saith he either through connivance negligence or indulgence shall tolerate such evils and evil persons in that state of Church-membership they cannot then deny them the priviledge of Members And I dare attribute as much to Gods connivance his indulgence and long suffering Till he sue out a bill of divorce and openly casts a people off that they be none of his Kingdome or called by his name they are in covenant and their children with them It seems Master Hooker judges that the Church may thus connive without sinne seeing he distinguisheth between connivance indulgence and
negligence I am sure God may out of just prerogative And to have the line broken off assoon as the power of godlinesse in a race declines is to be infinitely above God rigorous and severe and the ready way to bring in a strange and monstrous confusion He goes on and sayes he will a little consider the Text in reference to them and then instances in that in the second Commandment shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my Commandments as though that were the alone Text we had to rest upon Though much might be spoke by way of Animadversion of his Answer yet I forbeare Use may be made of that Text to evidence that it is no unreasonable thing to carry on a priviledge so farre from generation to generation and an easie reply made to most that he hath spoken Yet I build not a formal Argument upon it therefore I shall not spend time in it His second third and fourth Argument come in to fill up his Comment on that Text and therefore might have been answers not Arguments Fifthly he sayes that Text 1 Cor. 7. 14. seemes to tie the federal holinesse of the childe to the immediate parent doth not say the child is holy c. by vertue of a great grandfather And so it seemes to me also Those Corinthians being new Converts their issue had none but immediate Parents from whom they might claime their interest and by whom they might be entitled As the Parents themselves did claime it from no Parents or Progenitours at all their Ancestours having no power to communicate it Isaac and Ishmael had right of circumcision onely from their immediate Parent Abraham had right immediately from God Jacob and his posterity had right from Parents both mediate and immediate and these Corinthians from their immediate Parents onely and their children from Parents mediate and immediate Sixthly He sayes If that promise doth give this power to predecessours c. then though there are none to educate this childe For the ignorant profane parents will not but teach them how to break the covenant The predecessours cannot they are dead and are not yet we must seale to this childe c. Where do you see Churches take care of such children they must be of some bignesse and understanding before the Church meddle with them the immediate profane person brings him up in ignorance and profanenesse neither will take care to have his childe instructed by the Church as experience witnesseth too much Answ I understand here the covenant-promise as Acts 2. 39. by vertue of which these Jewes were children of the covenant Acts 2. 35. and not with limit to the second Commandment and then speak to it 1. Here is enough spoke to conclude the childes interest in case he shall be taught to break covenant then he is in covenant An Indians childe breaks no covenant with God And being in covenant he is interessed in the priviledge of the covenant 2. Let him make it up into formal Argument and then it runnes thus That childe whose immediate Parents will not bring it up in the power of godlinesse hath no right to Baptism This though it carry some fair shew with those that are not able to judge yet it is evidently false Those that were witnesse to themselves that they were the children of those that killed the Prophets were of the circumcision Matth. 23. 31. yea those that had crucified Christ were in covenant with God and their children in confederation Acts 2. 39. That counsel of the Prophet Zach. 1. 4. Be ye not as your fathers unto whom the former Prophets have cryed saying Thus saith the Lord of Hosts Turne ye now from your evil wayes and your evil doings c. might have been spared in case none had been received as Members in covenant but those whose fathers took all care for their education in the power of godlinesse and Stephen might have spared his reproof Acts 7. 51 52 53. or rather had runne upon a contradiction when he said Ye stiffe-necked and uncircumcised in hearts and eares ye do alwayes resist the Holy Ghost as your fathers did so do ye Which of the Prophets have not your fathers persecuted and they have slaine them which shewed before of the coming of the just One of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers who have received the Law by the disposition of Angels and have not kept it They stood vested with their children in that great prerogative Rom. 3. 1. The case of such children is sad but not desperate Though the Church cannot do the whole duty incumbent on a godly Parent yet it takes care for the dispensation of those Ordinances that are saving and Scripture calls by the name of Salvation I know some seeing the truth of title in such children to the covenant and consequently to Baptisme and therefore dare not deny them yet are so farre scandalized with this loose education of children that they will admit it onely with this caution that some undertake for their education and so those of loose life may have their children baptized because say they some difference ought to be put in all divine Ordinances between the pure and impure for the comfort of the godly the censure of the wicked and the edification of all But I wonder how this difference of pure and impure is seen between childe and childe that is tendered to Baptism As to covenant-holinesse they are both equal otherwise these mens undertaking would very hardly give them admission and as to real-holinesse neither have it by communication from their Parents otherwise say they the Ordinances of God cannot be kept without blot and pollution I wonder what pollution these mean I know none in children but Original sin and the childe of the best Parents is tainted with it and let us take heed of busying our selves with more care for preservation of Ordinances than ever God himself took about them If these thus borne have no right at all I suppose they should not be admitted with any caution whatsoever Master Cawdry observes and seemes to be of that judgement that some think this proviso to be too hard I confesse I am of that minde If notwithstanding so sad discomforts in such Parents infants stand vested in any such Birth-right-priviledge why should it be suspended on the courtesie of such undertakers being by birth-interest Christians they must not on this account passe for Heathens And how hard is it to impose such a burden upon any that is not ready to adopt the issue as his owne and in such case his undertaking upon that ground brings the charge of a father upon him This will soone grow into the bare formality of former Susceptors God-fathers and God-mothers without any real advantage to the childe If by education be meant such as a godly Parent ought to give none will be found to do it If onely education in the way of a Christian as in
opposition to Judaisme Heathenisme it needs not to be doubted and that implies a covenant What farther is desired must be lest to the blessing of God by providence on Ordinances The want of piety in the Parent is supplied by the piety of the Church into which the infant is received Seventhly saith he If the Predecessour may by this promise give right to Baptisme without the immediate Parent then I pray you tell us how farre we may go for this Predecessour how many generations Where hath Gods Word limited Ministers you may go to this Predecessour and no farther 1. I know few that say the Predecessour gives right without the immediate Parent but all concurre in a joynt way to communicate a covenant-interest but his question may have an easie answer 2. I demand in titles of Honour and inheritance of Lands which men claime by descent from their Ancestors where it is that they stay It will be soon answered that they stay when they can rise no higher to finde any other Predecessours vested in such honours or such inheritance Some can make no claim at all from Parents they are the first of their house of honour or inheritance This was the case of Abraham he had no interest from Terah such was the case of the Primitive Converts and such is the case of the Indians that now by a gracious providence are converted by the English Some can go no farther then their immediate Parents they were the first in honour or that gained an inheritance to their house This was the case of Isaac and of those children called by the Apostle holy 1 Cor. 7. 14. and will be the case of the children of the Indian Converts Others can rise to the third or fourth generation others can go as high as the Conquest some can claime beyond the Conquest by deeds beyond date so it is with some Christians all may go as high as Ancestours have been in Christianity Eightly If by vertue of that promise Predecessours may without the immediate parent give right to Baptisme then the children of an immediate parent apostatized from the Faith and excommunicated from the Church may be baptized I have spoke already to the children of Apostates and as to the children of excommunicate persons I readily yield his conclusion that I may baptize them against which he thus farther reasons If I may baptize the children of an excommunicate parent then I may baptize the children of one who is no Member of a Church for so is the excommunicate person so consequently the children of a Turk or Indian for they are no members of a Church and the excommunicated person is no other in respect of his communion in Church-priviledges I answer if excommunication be onely out of a particular visible congregation as some say then the reply is easie being thus excommunicate his right in the Church universal visible still remaines and into this it is that we admit Members by Baptisme 1 Cor. 12. 13. otherwise a Christian were a Christian respective onely to one congregation and that congregation falling his Christianity must fall with it and being taken into a new one he must be also admitted-anew by Baptisme But I farther answer A Church-Member may be considered either quoad jus ad rem or quoad jus in re either respective to a fundamental proper right or a present personal actual fruition of his interest An excommunicate man in the former sense is a Church-Member not in the later This excommunication is a sequestration not a confiscation He himself is suspended from present benefit not cut off from all title as several wayes may be made to appear 1. The Text saith Let him be as an Heathen or a Publican in respect of society with him or familiarity saith Master Cawdrey Diatribe pag. 218. not an Heathen and Publicane That Text 2 Thes 3. 14. is ordinarily understood of Excommunication yet there the caution is added Count him not as an enemy but admonish him as a brother vers 15. A brother is a Church-member an excommunicate person is a brother That which is for cure not only of the body but of the member in particular is not a total dismembring But this sentence is for cure of the particular member For the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord 1 Cor. 5. 5. Excommunication is not like poyson that is given to an enemy for death but a medicine that is given to a brother for life saith Gomarus in 2 Thes 3. 15. Certainly Gods casting out of his Kingdome Matth. 8. 12. taking away his Kingdome Mat. 21. 3. removal of his Candlestick Rev. 2. 5. the breaking off from the Olive Rom. 11. 17. is a sentence farre above Excommunication To let passe Authours of this minde Zanchy and Perkins quoted by Master Firmin The National Synod of France 1583. The Divines of Geneva Calvine Dr. Ames Danaeus Brochman quoted by Master Cawdrey Diatribe page 216. and examine it by reason Either the excommunicate persons sin divests the childe or else the Churches censure But neither the sin nor the censure Ergo. 1. Not the sin as may appear 1. By an Argument ad hominem Our Dissenting Brethren as we heard allow the Baptisme notwithstanding sin before the sentence of Excommunication It is not then the sin in their judgement that doth divest them 2. By an Argument ad rem No sin but that of nature descends to posterity man transmits not his personal vices neither fault nor guilt no more than his graces And for the sentence that cannot reach the childe I never read that Church-censures were like that plague laid upon Gehazi to cleave to him and to his seed In any legal proceeding the childe is not to be punished for the fathers fault there was a Law against it Deut. 24. 16. The fathers shall not be put to death for the children neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers every man shall be put to death for his own sin and Amaziah King of Judah is commended for observation of it and in his acts of justice proceeding according to it 2 Chron. 25. 34. and we read not that any Ecclesiastical censure should transcend it The child of a thief is not committed with him to prison I see no reason that he should be committed with him to Satan I say then there is right to Baptism in the child of an excommunicate person I wish our Brethren would stick here not refuse those children whose parents are under no Excommunication As to the third our Authour 1. Premises a question Whether is this bare profession of Faith in Christ though Parents be grossely ignorant scandalous and refuse to subject to Church-discipline sufficient to make a man and continue him a Member of the Church visible And then proceeds to arguments as to his question I wonder how he can imagine that it makes any thing to his question
to a childe by vertue of him that is formally in covenant with God and really does service to Satan must needs be a prophaning of the Ordinance and then the weaknesse of his argument will appeare visible and no visibility of a covenant with Satan found I do not know a man or woman in the world whose childe I could refuse on this account Those to whom our Saviour speaks in the sharpest language Joh. 8. 44. You are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father ye will do were men in covenant with God and had their children initiated with the signe and seal of the covenant he farther saith I wonder how Ministers pray when they baptize the childe of such a one they cannot but have some eye to Gods covenant and do we not mention so much to the Lord that he having taken the parent into covenant with himselfe he doth also the seed of the parent and so we plead the covenant and a blessing c. but when a godly Minister shall carry the parent in his heart thus doth not his heart check him trouble him in the thought of the parent They may well pray that God will make his Ordinances through his Spirit of power that the infant of a covenant-breaking father may be a covenant-keeping childe that such an Abaz in covenant and breaking covenant may have an Hezekiah keeping covenant such an Ammon a Josiah and this without the least check of conscience This is frequently heard of God and prayers for the children of godly parents frequently denied David hath an Ammon and Absalom Jehoshaphat a Jehoram and Josiah a Jehoaz Their conscience would infinitely more check them if the word regulate their consciences when providence conferres priviledges of Ordinances on such an infant to be received where salvation is upon so weak and as to Scripture unheard of plea as his fathers transgression to keep it out For a fifth Argument He hints two things which he would have seriously taken into examination though he sayes he will not put them into form 1. How exceedingly this Ordinance is sleighted abused through this heedlesse administring of the Ordinance for we see persons never minde the Ordinance beforehand nor after But come let us have our children baptized and that is all if they can make a feast and drink after it that is well This is the argument of Anabaptists against infant-Baptisme Because some Reverend Divines complaine that few improve their Baptisme received in infancy to any spiritual advantage to their souls therefore it is in vaine to Baptize infants One is like the other in Ordinances of God to reason from the abuse to the casting of them aside Nonsingers of Psalmes which himselfe professes to oppose may reason in this sort and upon like ground some have warned men out of Christ not to pray they ought to forbeare till they are in Christ And when a natural man blesses God for a good crop that it were as good that he cursed him If men were disposed to wrangle here doubtlesse were more colour against such mens performances of duties in which onely themselves are interessed than against parents tender of their infants to an Ordinance in which of right they are entitled though they lay not to heart a right and pious way of performance of it Besides saith he it is strange to see how we jumble the most holy and prophane men together If Master Greenham Master Perkins Master Rogers Master Dod or whom you will should come and bring their children to be baptized let the most ignorant sot drunkard swearer uncleane person scorner of godlinesse c. come he shall have his childe baptized as well as they Have they their children taken into covenant so have I sayes the drunkard swearer c. shall we owne all these men alike under the covenant so as to give the seale of the covenant a like to all This many a time hath been in my thoughts and in nothing did I ever receive more full satisfaction Not one of these holy men would have made any such complaint and in case the children of such should meet in this Ordinance I could as easily difference them by their visage and features as I could respective to their several interests or priviledges Parents are in covenant with God as long as they keep up the name and profession of Christians the one with all care walks up to the termes of the covenant and the other are as loose and carelesse in it Master Greenham Master Perkins could not transmit to their children their graces Neither do these transmit their personal wickednesse Look into the Common-wealth of Rome and call out the most deserving Patriots set against them Verres Catiline or who you will freedome of birth interest in native priviledges is like to the issue of either and so it is in the Church of God the Common-weale of Israel and it can be no otherwise if there be any priviledge divolved from parent to childe And when this falls infant-Baptisme falls together with it nothing in the childe as our Authour well observes without relation to the parent can give any interest CHAP. LX. The application of the whole in several inferences TO winde up the whole of this discourse of the birth-priviledge of the seed of Beleevers in some practical application First All possible engagements and obligations unto all holinesse of conversation necessarily follows and flowes from this royal priviledge and high advancement of birth-holinesse If we contend for their dignity and minde them not at all of duty of the honour of their birth and call them not to a suitable life In the neglect of duty they may soon make forfeiture of their dignity and turn this singular mercy into the highest aggravation of their misery we blame those of noble and generous birth that betake themselves to sordid and ignoble wayes Thus degenerating they are a blot to their families a disgrace and reproach to their race no birth equal in honour to that of Christians Theodosius worthily esteemed it a greater honour that he was a Christian than that he was an Emperour None degenerate so foully and blame-worthily as they when their conversation is unchristian wayes of sin are for sinners of the Gentiles a way proper for Turks and Pagans let the holy seed be holy their demeanour suited to their honour Sardanapalus the King may with lesse infamy spin among women or Domitian the Emperour spend his time in catching of flies works farre below their dignities than a Christian may sin with a Heathen The Martyrs in Primitive times being moved to swear by the fortune of Caesar thought that the answer was full and fair to say they were Christians Such answer should he have that would tempt to ungodlinesse should such a one as I fly saith Nehemiah Nehem. 6. 11. his honour would not suffer him to be so base should such a man as a Christian the least of whom is greater than
Nehemiahs better Mat. 11 11. be for sin He that is not a sinner by birth should be no sinner in his life Baptisme is the greatest honour such bear Christs name and weare his livery they have that title in which Jude and James with other of the Apostles gloried A servant of Jesus Christ Baptisme is the greatest engagement Let every one that nameth Christ depart from iniquity 2 Tim. 2. 19. To talk of Baptisme and to live in sin is to wear the colours of one and plot and fight for another to wear Christs colours and fight for Satan Baptisme renders a sinner up to the heaviest punishment The high favours shewed to the Jewes made a Jew to fare worse in the wayes of sin than an Heathen Amos 3. 2. The high favours shewed to Christians make Christians to fare worse in sinful wayes than Heathens Heb. 2. 3. All in a Christians calling bespeaks this holinesse God by whom he is called 1 Pet. 1. 15. The work to which he is called 1 Thes 4. 7. The company unto which he is joyned Ephes 2. 19. The attendants by whom he is guarded Matth. 25. 31. The rule whereby he is guided Rom. 1. 2. The Seale by which he is confirmed Ephes 1. 13. And the place whither he makes and tends Heb. 9. 8. all are holy Secondly Let the parents of such seed now see what education is expected Breeding must answer birth and descent A Christian is of the noblest birth he must therefore have the most noble education and the Apostle calls upon parents to bring up their Children in nurture and admonition of the Lord Ephes 6. 4. God may call on them thus to bring up his children in nature theirs in covenant Gods Every Christian parent hath a childe of God committed to his care and tuition How great a soloecisme is it that Parents should dedicate children so soon as borne unto Christ professing to the world that they belong to him and that with Hannah concerning Samuel they intend them for him when nothing appeares in their education but that they might have been given to Molok somewhat worse than the mongrell seed that spoke halfe in the language of Canaan and halfe in the language of Ashdod Nehem. 13. 24. Scarce a word can be heard out of their mouths to argue that they are Christians lisping out oaths as soone as words put to learne trades and little regard had that they might know Christ Jesus And how much is it to be desired that authority would take order for more careful catechistical teaching of youth in the wayes of Christian Religion that God may not complaine of England as of Israel My people perish for want of knowledge Hos 4. 7. A people of God and a people ignorant to perdition and destruction England is highly honoured of God by this gracious call with Capernaum lifted up to heaven England would highly honour God if care might be taken that all might know God from the highest to the lowest we shall never be a Gospel-like people till we be a knowing people 〈◊〉 we take care that as we are Jewes by nature so we may be Jewes in qualification so borne so bred that as our youth is descended so also they may be trained That as God honours our children with his name calling them his children so they may honour his name and advance his glory in all holinesse of conversation Thirdly Those may yet see whom they oppose that stand in opposition of a people thus interessed a people so ingratiated to God in covenant that there is not the least infant in whom God hath not his title and right of challenge The aggravation of the Psalmists complaint is that the Heathens are come into thine inheritance the dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the foules of the heaven the flesh of thy Saints unto the beasts of the Earth Psalme 79. 1 2 3. The whole body of such a people root and branch stand in relation to God as the inheritance the servants the Saints of God such inscriptions we finde in Saint Pauls Epistles not one of the whole body is excluded but they are such by covenant and such by calling Enough hath been said to make it to appeare that the denomination reaches even infants who are the Lords heritage Psalme 127. 3. and Christs name is upon them Matth. 18. 5. As it is accounted an happy work to dash the little ones of Babylon against the wall Psalme 137. 9. because of the hostility of that Nation against God and his people so it is a like execration to intermeddle with the little ones of Sion by reason of the holinesse of such a people their covenant-relations in which they stand interessed 2 Kings 8. 12. Much is spoken in Scripture against the enemies of the righteous the haters of them shall be desolate he that offends against them shall not be innocent Psalme 34. 21. God observes every carriage of the adversary towards them in misery they speak not a word but God hath it against them when Ammonites Tyrians cry Aha against the people of God they are witted with it and threatned for it Ezek. 26. 2. 36. 2. Not a proud word that they utter but it is brought in to fill up the charge against them Obad. 12. Psalme 137. 7. yea every eye that is cast with approbation of the adversary Obad. 13. 14. Every encouraging word they speak and every act they do against such a people yea injuries of elder times are kept in the deck and laid to them Deut. 25. 17. And all because they stand in this relation to God as his in covenant which you cannot limit onely to the personally righteous but all that are of a Society and fellowship that is such as are interessed in a righteous cause The holy anointing oile did make sacred when yet too often the man was wicked and therefore David looked upon Saul as the Lords Anointed It holds in Analogy and proportion unto all that have any unction from God as all the called of God have When they were but a few in number yea very few and strangers when they went from one Nation to another from one Kingdome to another people he suffered no man to do them wrong yea he reproved Kings for their sakes saying Touch not mine Anointed Psalme 105. 12 13 14 15. All the people of God have that Anointing from God that none may dare to intermeddle for their harme God promises his people that dwell in Sion that the burthen of Assyria shall be taken from off their shoulder and his yoke from off their neck and that the yoke shall be destroyed because of the Anointing Isaiah 10. 27. Some will say as this is carried The danger of intermeddling with any is with us a like Even Papists and the worst of men that are called Protestants are thus of a people that are called Gods people and go by the name of Christians For answer I
is not unfitly called in instrument of God p. 128 See Faith Justification Ishmael In Covenant when circumcised p. 296 Not to be branded with bastardy ibid. He and his seed cast out of Covenant p. 298 Justification Mans concurrence in it necessarily required in it as an acceptant not as agent p. 127 It is a transient act of God not an immanent p. 132 It is not from eternity p. 131 c. A justified man an an fitted for every duty to which God calls p. 135. See Faith Instrument K. Kingdome of Heaven IN what sense taken Matth. 19. 14 c. p. 399 The Hinge of the contraversie concerning infants interest in Covenant hangs not on the interpretation of those words ibid. Anabaptists reasons not sufficient to prove it to be meant of the Kingdome of Glory p. 400 Though understood of the Kingdome of Glory it serves not to discovenant or dischurch infants p. 401 L. Law COnsidered as a Covenant to give life is inconsistent with the Gospel p. 55 Moral-Law hath a commanding power over Beleevers ibid. By Arguments asserted ibid. Objections answered p. 58 In what sense a dead husband p. 59 See Moses A rule of our duty not of our strength p. 151. Life What in Scripture it implies p. 100 The same in substance in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace ibid. A Medium may be concieved and is by some assigned between life and death in Scripture acceptation p. 123 Lord. The acceptation of Christ as Lord doth not justifie p. 125 Love To do a thing out of obedience to the Law and by love not opposite p. 61 Love cleaves to Christ for communion but recieves him not for justification p. 125 M. Master Marshal VIndicated p. 435 Mediatour A foure-fold work respective to the Covenant incumbent on the Mediatour p. 93 c. See Christ Moses Metaphor God's entring Covenant with man no Metaphor p. 10. 37 Ministers Must bring their people up to the termes of the Covenant in pressing the necessity of Faith and Repentance p. 188 c. They must not sever the promise from the duty p. 189 Ministry The necessity of a Ministry to bring me into Covenant and to bring them up to the termes of the Covenant p. 160. Reasons evincing that God hath appointed such a Ministry to be perpetuated through all ages p. 162 c. Reasons evincing the necessity of such an established Ministry p. 165 c. Objections answered p. 168 169 An orderly call from God into the Ministerial function necessary p. 180 Reasons assigned p. 181 182 Several wayes of calling to the work of The Ministry p. 182 See Ordination Ministry-maintenance p. 442 Moses The Law as delivered by Moses bindes Christians p. 73 74 75 He delivered a Covenant to the Jewes p. 210 He delivered a Covenant of Grace to the Jewes p. 210 211 In his time commands were frequent and full the directive and maledictive part for discovery of sin were open and clear but promises for eternity little known p. 213 He was a Mediatour in type N. Nature TAken for Birth-priviledge or descent from Ancestors p. 307 Taken for qualifications of nature ibid. Jewes by nature had priviledges above Gentiles p. 307 308 O. Obedience See Righteousnesse Olive THe whole universal Church visible Rom. 11. p. 325 Fatnesse of the Olive glory of Ordinances p. 326 Ordination An orderly call by way of Ordination into the Ministerial function necessary in all not gifted by immediate revelation p. 182 Ordination described ibid. Men in Ministerial function are to act in Ordination p. 182 183 They are to set men apart as Presbyters and Elders p. 184 Ordination not to be passed but upon examination and tryal p. 140 To be solemnized with fasting and prayer p. 185 186 Imposition of hands to be used p. 187 Objections answered ibid. P. Pardon NAtional and personal p. 343 My People That phrase applied in New Testament-Scriptures to those that stand invisible relation to God p. 258 Places for worship In New Testament-times have their warranty In what sense holy p. 441 Places holy by divine institution by divine approbation p. 439 Positions concerning places for worship in Gospel-times p. 441 Not in equipage with the Temple and Tabernacle ibid. Temple and Tabernacle had the pre-eminence in four Particulars ibid. Our places of meeting by good warranty called Churches p. 441 c. Position This Position that the Moral Law hath no commanding power over Believers examined p. 58 That position concerning the Old Covenant to be both a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace examined p. 210 Power Necessary in the call of Nations to a visible Church-state p. 330 Priviledge See Birth Professors Who to be accounted so before men p. 450 Promises Made to the wiked made good to the believing and penitent p. 190 Absolute promises yield not peace to him that is wanting in the conditions of God required ibid. p. 47 Objections answered p. 190 Spiritual promises rare and obscure under Moses his administration p. 213 Scriptures evincing the spirituality of Old Testament-Promises p. 222 Temporal promises annexed as appendants to spiritual in the Old Covenant p. 226 Children of Promise All the seed of Abraham by Isaac born by vertue of that miraculous promise p. 298 Q. Quaeries PVt to those that restraine the New Covenant to the Elect regenerate p. 234 c. Put to those that put a limit to the New Covenant respective to the issue p. 317 R. Reconciliation GRadual or total of persons of Nations p. 331 Repentance A distinct grace from faith p. 136 A condition of the Covenant of grace ib. Considered in the prae-requisites p. 137 In the essential parts of it ibid. Privative part which is cessation from sin is required in Covenant p. 140 Positive part which is a returne to God and an holy walk with God is required in Covenant p. 142 See Righteousnesse Objections answered p. 144 c. Reprobation No cause of unbelief or sin p. 341 It leads not to condemnation without merit of sin as Election leads to Salvation without merits of works ibid. Righteousnesse What degree of righteousnesse is required in the Covenant of Grace p. 148 Perfection of degrees is not so required that upon the defection of it the penalty is incurred p. 149 Perfection of degrees is not required and sincerity accepted p. 151 Reasons assigned ibid. c. Objections answered p. 153 Our Evangelical righteousnesse is imperfect p. 155 c Sincerity is required and accepted p. 112 c. Root and Branch Denote parent and childe Rom. 11. 16. p. 325 Root Abraham Isaac and Jacob. ibid. Every natural parent a Root p. 338 Every natural believing Parent an holy Root ibid. Abraham a Root by communication not by example p. 399 S. Sacraments ARe Gospel mysteries p. 446 Sacriledge Defined p. 440 With-holding infants of believing parents from Baptism is Sacriledg p. 437 c. Saints Vnregenerate persons have the name and outward priviledge of Saints p.