Evangelical grace then âod promised to be his God in respect of regeneration justification adoption sanctification and raising up to eternal liâe and he was in that estaâe and if hâ were shut out again âhen a man may be in the covenant of Evangelical grace and shut out again which is contrary to the very end of the new Câvenant as it is expressed Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10. and infers falling away from Gospel grace Mr. Bl. proceeds thus Neither are all these included for as God cast off Ishmael and his seed so also Esau and his posterity therefore the Apostle having brought the former distinction of seeds rests not there but adds v. 10 11 12 13. And therâfore the denomination of the seed is in Jacob sirnamed Israel Therefore when the head or if you will root of the Covenant is mentioned usually in Scripture it is not barely Abraham but Abraham and Isaac to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line not barely Abraham and Isaac but Abraham Isaac and Jacob. The natural seed of Jacob then not according to ours but Gods own limits is included in that Covenant in the full latitude and extent of it Answ. 1. The terms head or root of the Covenant are not Scripture expressions I finde Gal. 3.16 that to Abraham and his seed were the promises made and Rom. 11.16 If the root be holy so are the branches v. 18. thou bearest not the root âut the root thee but this root is I conceive no other then Abraham who is âot termed either head or root of the Covenant singly or jointly but of the olive or branches in respect of their propagation from him partly as a natural father and a spiritual father in respect of Isâaelite believers anâ partly as a spiritual father onely in respect of Gentile believers But if any be to be termed the head and root of the Covenant I think it is most fit to give that title to Christ the surety and mediatour Heb. 7.22 8.6 to whom the promises were made Gal. 3.16 17. 2. When God is stiled the God of Abraham Iâsaac and Jacob that it is to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line and to say that God cast off Esau and his posterity from the Covenant is more then the Apostle saith or is according to truth For the Apostle doth onely say that therefore the Oracle was delivered concerning Esau and Jacob and the words of the Prophet concerning Jacob and Esau are alledged that he might shew that God confined not his Covenant to Abrahams natural posterity nor included them all not to shew that he cast off or excluded all Abrahams seed of any other line then âsaac and Jacob from the Covenant For then Joâ Jethro and all other Proselytes of Abrahams seed by Keturah of Esauâs posterity had been excluded from the Covenant of grace in Christ which is contrary to Scripture and in like sort all the Gentile from Ishmael Keturah Esau âad been excluded from being called Christian believers For none are called by God who are excluded out of the Covenant of grace 3. That the natural seed of Jacob is included in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 in the full latitude and exâent of it as it comprehends a promise of Evangelical grace is so far from being the Apostles determination thaâ he resolves in the contrary in those words Rom. 9.6 All are not Israel that are of Israel Secondly saith Mr. Bl. We dâ not say that this Covenant was entred with Abraham as a nâtural Father nor his seed comprehended as natural children but aâ a pâofessour of the Faith âccepting the Conant taking God for his God he accepts it for himself and fâr his seed his natural pâsterity And all that profess the Faith hold in the like tenâre are in Covenant and have the Covenant not vested in their own persons but enlarged to their posterity Answ. I do not remember that I did any where say that Paedobaptists said that covenant Gen. 17.7 wâ entred with Abraham as a natural âather but the Authour of the little Treatise intituled Infants Baptism proved lawful by Scripture asserted the Covenant was made with Abraham as a believer to which I replied that as it was Evangelical it was not made with Abraham simply as a believer for then it had been made to every believer as to Abraham but with Abraham as the Father of believers and with his seed as believers as he was But that ever any Paedoâaptist did afore Mr. Bl assert that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it was a Covenant of Evangelical grace was entred by God with him as a professour of the faith accepting the Covenant taking God for his God accepting it for himself and for his seed his natural posterity I do not remeâber If they should yet I take it to be false and without likelihood of truth For if the Covenant of Evangelical grace were made with Abraham under that formal consideration then God had promised Evangelical grace justication adoption to him as a professour of faith onely so that if it were supposed he had been an hopocrite yet he should have been justified adopted in that he was a professour of faith or else it is to be conceived justification and adoption were not to Abraham by this Covenant contrary to Gal. 3.16 17 18. nor hath it any likelihood of truth that God would single out so exemplary a believer as Abraham was Rom. 4.18 19. and enter so solemn a Covenant with him barely as a professour of faith which was competent to an hypocrite Nor do I well know in what sense God entred the Covenant with him as â professour of the faith accepting the Covenant for himself and his sâed For Gods entring the Covenant is no other then his making of it But God did not make it on this condition that Abraham should accept it fâr him and his seed but as knowing Abrahams integrity bâ way of testification of his love and grace to him being so eminent and tried a believer afore this Câvenant was made with him Nor is it true that all that profess the faith hold in the like tenure are in Covenant and have the Covenânt not vested in their own persons but enlarged to their posterity there being none in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 but Abraham and his seed of whom no meer professour of faith much leâs his seed except elect or true believer is either Nor was the Covenant ever made to Abrahams or Israels mere natural posterity as it is Evangelical much less enlarged to the posterity natural of every professour of faith Thirdly saith Mr. Bl. We entitle the seed oâ Abraham as before to spiritual mercies and so the seed of all that hold in the tenure of Abraham to saving grace and justification to life eternal not by an absolute conveyance infallibly to inherit we know though Israel be as the sand of the sea yet a remnant onely shall be saved Rom. 9.27 but upon Gods terms and conditions in
I grant but deny what he adds and still stands by vertue of the Covenant to believers and their children For neither is there such a Covenant and if there were yet Abraham could be a root onely to his natural seed not to Gentiles by vertue of that Covenant And what he adds that though old Testament ordinances were taken away with the Jews and that Church-state yet the root is not taken away but the New Testament priviledges grow on the same root and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off letting pass the vanity of the speeches that our ingraffing gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges which they had not by our ingraffing but their own propagation from the root and that the Jews had the priviledges till they were broken off whereas the persons broken off never had the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 all this answer avoids not the objection but plaiâly grants the argument For if the Old Testament ordinances and the Jewish Churchstate were taken away which all that are against a national Church-frame must aver then if by fatness be meant outward ordinances and Churchstate the Gentiles cannot be said to partake of them nor they be meant by the fatness Rom. 11.17 Let 's examine what Mr. Bl. saith to this argument 1. He denies that he ever said every believing parent is the root a root he makes them not the root But by his leave I charge him with nothing but what doth plainly follow from his words For that is the root according to him which communicates Covenant holiness and Church-state and of whom it is verified if the root be holy so are the branches But this is said by him in his Vindic. Faed p. 277. and elsewhere of every believing parent therefore if Mr. Bl. avouch his own arguings he makes every believing parent the root Rom. 11.16 17. What Mr. Bl. speaks that other parents are roots to their posterity is granted and needed not to be proved by Mr. Blâut âut that they being holy persons are holy roots communicating Covenant holiness to their children is not prâved by Mr. Bl. That the Covenant or promise of God made to Abraham Gen. 15.5 17 4 7. did assure and âo constitute Abraham to be the root of the Church of true believers is not denied nor that Circumcision did seal to him the righteousness of faith as a believer and the father of believers Rom. 4.11 12. But the form denominating him Father of believers or root of the Olive is propagating them by his exemplary faith Nor was David by his Covenant or Jesse or any other believing parent a root or father in the sense Rom. 4.11 11.16 17. Though they were natural roots to their posterity and builders of the house of Israel and the Fathers 1 Cor. 10.1 by natural generation yet none are said to build as Abraham from whom the fatness Rom. 11.17 is derived and not from any other intermediate father For Abraham had been father though he had had no child by natural generation Mat. 3.9 descending from him Nor can it be tâue that he is termed the root by reason of natural generation For then the Gentiles had not been branâhes and children and âll the branches had been natural contrary to v. 21 24. To this saith Mr. Bl. He makes them wild onely at their first ingraffing and so was all Terahs race wild likewise till that change of faith wrought in Abrahams call and the Covenant God entred with him we now are natural as they were and cannot be called wild but in our first original Answ. They that were ingraffed were still branches of the wild Olive and so are we that are believers of the Gentiles for that title is by nature and natural descent Rom. 11.24 which is not changed by grace though the fruit and sap be changed that is the qualities and actions by ingraffing We that are believers of the Gentiles are not the branches according to nature for that is plainly meant of the Jews onely Rom. 11.24 when it is said they that are according to nature shall be graffed in their own Olive Which shews that the term they that are according to nature iâ proper to the Jews But if every believing parent should be the root Rom. 11.16 17. then every Gentile believers child should be a natural branch contrary to v. 24. for they are all besides nature and no believing Gentile nor his child is now or hath been a natural branch in the sense the Apostle means Rom. 11.24 But Mr. Bls. chief objection is this If the ingraffing be by a saving faith onely to derive saving graces personalây inherent as a fruit of election from Abraham then it must needs be that we are elect in Abraham Abraham may say without me ye can do nothing and he that believeth in me out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water And we may say the life that we live in the flesh we live by faith in the son of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham be the root noâ onely respective to a conditional Covenant but to the graces under condition covenanted Answ. 1. This objection may be thus retorted If the ingraffing be by a faith of profession onely to derive onely outward ordinances outward priviledges Covenant holiness visible Churchmembership as a fruit of the Covenant from Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root then we are iâ Covenant in Abraham Isaac and Jacob They may say without us ye cannot be visible Churchmembers c. he that professeth faith in us shall have outward Church priviledges the priviledges we have in the visible Church we have by profession of faith in the son of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be the root respective to the Covenant and Covenant holiness as Mr. Bl. asserts when Mr. Bl. hath freed himself from these absurdities I shall have somewhat more to answer him 2. In the mean time my answer in my Apology is that the absurdities follow not on my opinion who make not Abraham a rooâ as communicating faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing in which sense he is stiled the father of believers Rom. 4 11 12. To this Mr. Bl. in his flirting fashion replies thus A root not by communication but example an ingraffing not to have any thing communicated from the root but to imitate it is such a Catachresis as may well make all Rhetorick âshamed of it and if the Sun ever saw a more notable piece of non sense I am to seek what sense is A root is too low in the earth to have its examples followed and a syens sucks in juyce but knowes not how to imitate Answ. 1. Mr. Bl. grosly abuseth me by insinuating as if I mentioned a root not by communication but example
and ingraffing not to have any thing from the rooâ but to imitate it But this I said that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion or impeâration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example whereby righâeousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern according to which God gives both though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause which the Apostle doth Rom. 4.11 12. and as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. pag. 1â Dr. Willet Diodati Pareus do so expound the root and father of the faithfull so that if there bee non-sense these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it as well as my self which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root as communicating Ordinances visible Churchmembership c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants Sure not by natural generation for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way not by teaching or example for they are not things imitable nor are they to them teachers or visible examples not by communicating to them the Covenant that is Gods act What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick and less truth in his explication then in mine What hee adds that whatsoever kinde of root I make it yet it is a communicative root vers 17. I grant it in the sense expressed not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration but as an âdea And what hee saith further that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's yet in the main they agree is as much as I need to shew that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onely as a pattern then it is to term him a Father who begets onely as an example And whereas hee saith both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a Father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom 9.4 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense that is to be partakers of outward ordinances which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption Rom. 9.4 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham belonged the Covenants and adoption and other pâiviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the flâsh though not imparted to all there alledged is denied Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example and therefore he is a root no other way âhen I assigne if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed Yet hee adds the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude as hee doth impart to his issue as before so hee is a patâern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. â2 quoted by Mr. T. is set forth yet that place is too palpably abused Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions yet not all nor onely parents are such nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onely but because hee as the Aâchtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle Mr. Bl. tels mee The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed or the profession of faith which hee made All that were professedly Jews and all that were professedly Christians wâlk in the steps of that faith All circumcised believers had not that faith that justâfies nor yet all the uncircumcised and Abraham is a father of both Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed onely in that which is external his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here For it appears not onely from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent specially v. 9 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed âo them also that the Apostle speaks of that faith onely which is justifying which is believing with the heart Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth or the profession of faith which he made which a Judas or Simon Magus might have and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies As for Mr. Bls. reason it is against himselfe for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying both might be known by Gods word and be followed as a pattern though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith who do believe as hee did though they never saw or heard of Abrahams bâlieving as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same though he never saw the Copy He adds And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onely the root as he is onely the âather of believers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of believers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 9.16 17 18 19 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out chap. 11. as one example among many we find many that went before him Abel Enoch Noah and more that followed after him And I
be baptizable That the Covenant Deut. 29.14 15. should âe made virtually radically with us Gentiles is a doâage with a witness not onely the express words v. 1. but also the passages all along Ch. 29 30. shew it was the legal Covenant renewed with the people of Israel and their posterity to engage them to observe all the Law of God given by Moses not the Covenant made to Adam Abraham David the New or better Covenant If the Covenant may stand in one then it is not necessary that a people nation seed body should be in covenant and consequently it may stand without infants The Apostle saith not Rom. 11.16 the Fathers were the root But Mr. Rutherfurd adds Hence Anabaptists without all reason say that hee speaks not of federal and external holiness but of real internal and true holiness onely of the invisible body predestinated to life for though invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were without doubt a part of the rooâ Answ. Anabaptists if we must be so named do say that the holiness Rom. 11.16 is meant of real internal and true holiness and consequently the persons there said to be holy are all of the invisible body predestinated to life and no other but such there meant yet they deny not that the holiness of the Covenant and Church theâe meant were made visible by its working the collective body of the Jewes predestinate to life and that it is not said without all reason might have appeared to Mr. Rutherfurd if he had read my Examen part 3 sect 7. my Apol. sect 14. pag. 67. Review part 1. sect 1 c. part 3. sect 75. yea if there were nothing else said but what Mr. Rutherfurd here yeilds that invisible holiness cannot be excluded except we exclude the holiness of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who were withoue doubt part of the root that which Anabaptists say is not said without reason and that demonstrative For if invisible holiness cannot be excluded then it is included and if included together with external visible holiness then the holiness there meant is not external holiness alone nor they who have meerly external federal holiness are there said to be holy and consequently no reprobate but onely the predestinate to life And if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be part of the root and therefore invisible holiness cannot bee excluded then the rest of the root and the branches which are made in the text alike holy must have invisible holiness also But Mr. Rutherfurd ads Yet he must be taken to speak of that holiness of the Covenant and Church as made visible and of the visible collective body of the Jews not of onely real and invisible holiness 1. Because this was true in the days of Elias If the root be holy the branches are holy And it is a New Testament-truth of perpetual verity If the Fathers be holy so must the sons The Fathers have Church-right to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Supper so have the children but it is most false of the invisible mystical body and root onely and of real and internal holiness For neither in Old or New Testament is it true if the Fathers be predestinated to life justified and sanctified and saved so must the children be Answ. The term holy Rom. 11.16 notes onely real and invisible holiness in that place though the persons said to bee holy have it made visible and it agree to the visible collective body of the Jewes And the proposition of Mr. Rutherfurd to the contrary If the Fathers be holy so must the sons is most false not onely being understood of invisible but also of visible holiness of Churchright to Circumcision to Baptism to the Passeover and the Lords Suppâr Though the father were holy visibly by profession of the God of Israel yet had not hee nor his child right thereby to Circumcision and the Passeover without being a Proselyte of righteousness taking on him the precepts of Moses to observe and joyning to the policy of Israel and yet even then the child of age who did not avouch the God of Israel had no right thereto Nor by Paedobaptists own principles hath the child of age right to Bapâism or the Lords Supper without his own profession though the parentâ be Christians nor the infant of a believer baptized as they conceive right to the Lords Supper Mr. Rutherfurd is grosly mistaken in making every believing parent the root meânâ Rom. 1.16 and every natural child a branch For then every believing parent should beare his child v. 18. and every natural child shouâd derive holiness from his believing parent Abrahams naturâl children at this day are not in the Olive nor shall be till re-ingraffed Abraham is the root not as a natural father but as Father of believers and âone are branches or holy as the Apostle there means but through âaith according to election Nor are hereby the distinctions of Jew inward and outward child of the flesh and promise taken away nor whole Israel certainly saved Nor by the branches be meant all the visible body of the Jews old and yong which âe miâht have imagined would be replied to hiâ argument pag. 114. Nor is it new Divinity but old That none are to be baptized but such as are under actual exercise of their faith which may be discerned by their profession in those that are come to age It is neither my Divinitâ nor follows though Mr. Rutherfurd cânceives it doth on it that predestination to life and glory must bee proâogated and derived from the lump to the first fruits he meant from the first fruits to the luâp from the root and parents to the branches and children But this I say that faith and righteousness are propagated and derived from âbraham as an exemplary root to all his spiritual branches or seed by conformation to him I do not say that the Apostle Rom. 11. speaks of an invisible body but this I say the Apostle by branches means two sorts of people the one Jews who were then broken off from the Olive tree which is the invisible Church of the elect the other Gentiles then graffed in yet not all the Gentiles nor one nation wholly and entirely but a great part of them in comparison of what were formerly in the Olive very numerous How these branches were an elect seed and yet fell away were preached to had a national election and external calling were in the room of the Jewes âid partake of the fatness of the Olive is so fully opened in the places before cited that I think it unnecessary to add here any more Onely whereas he makes it an absurdity that the infants of baptized actual believers should be all heathen as well as the casten off the Jewes it is to me and absurdity unfit for any learned man to vent that knows that Heathen in English is all one with Gentiles and ãâã ãâã ãâã
and imagins an ordinance of their visible Church-membership distinct from the ordinance of Circumcision unrepealed out of which he endeavours to prove Infant-baptism though he no where that I know shew us where that ordinance is notwithstanding in my Praecursor and elsewhere he hath been often pressed to shew it which book of M. B. taking so much that a third edition is printed I had hoped paedobaptists would have stuck to his way and declined the other way of analogy of the Command of Circumcision But I see latter books as M. Sidenham M. Fuller and others still insisting on the hypothesis concerning the covenants and the seal and Baptisms succession to Circumcision c. M. Gataker in his Latin treatise against D. Ward about the force and efficacy of Infant-baptism though by his Epistle it appears he had seen M. Baxters books yet p. 16. he speaks thus to D. Ward I would you had specially designed the Command concerning the baptizing the infants of believers which you mean For although from the analogy of Circumcision and the nature of this very sacrament as it is destined to initiation the comprehension of infants in the Covenant of grace c. I deservedly believe both the Antient Church to have used and the Church at this day justly to use Infant-baptism yet hitherto I have found no speciall Command concerning this thing I wish he had formed and confirmed his proof for Infant-baptism from the Analogy of Circumcision c. so antient learned a man and so accurate in Controversies me thinks should have yielded some better proof for Infant-baptism than others have don or have forborn calling them novel sectaries who with so much endeavour oppugn Infant-baptism which is the expression in his Epistle to the Reader and with-held his hand from subscribing to that attestation wherein the Four positions of my Examen were censured as erroneous and pernicious But not meeting with any other proof than this I shall keep on in the Review of the dispute and examine the pretended institution of Infant-baptism out of the Old Testament taking in some texts of the New and first Examine the way of proof by analogy of Circumcision which seems to have been the Assemblies way and then M. Bs. more refined way as is imagined desiring the Reader to take notice of what was before disputed in the Second Section of the second part of this Review to prove that consequences drawn from analogy between meer positive rites of the Old and New Testament to prove a duty in the use of them without particular institution are not good SECT II. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. are Examined Two wayes I finde Consequences framed one in arguments formed syllogistically the other in certain Conclusions or hypotheses from whence it is conceived they may deduce Infant-baptism I begin with the former way I had formed the argument from Gen. 17.7 c. three wayes in my Exercit. Sect. 1 2 3. and that without disadvantage to my Antagonists notwithstanding D. Homes his exceptions But I am content to view the forms D. Homes sets down as more agreeable to their minde In his Animadversion on my Exerc. chap. 2. pag. 6. he saith Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7 c. is this Where there is a Command for a thing never remanded on contramanded there the thing is still in force But there is a Command for signing the infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 9. never yet remanded or contramanded therefore the signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of grace namely baptism now is still in force To which I answer 1. The conclusion is not of the thing in question which is not of the children of believers but of the Infant-children of believers as it was in the Minor now a person of 20. years of age is a believers child as well as one of two dayes old 2. In the Minor the sign of the Covenant of grace Commanded is understood either of the sign of the Covenant of grace expressed in the Conclusion to wit Baptism and if so it is denied that there is any such Command Gen. 17.7 9. to sign with the sign of the Covenant of grace believers infants there 's no Command but of circumcising the manchild of eight dayes old not a tittle of baptism or else of a sign of the Covenant of grace there expressed and if so the Minor is denied that the Command for signing the Infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 9. was never yet remanded or contramanded It was expressely contramanded Acts 15.28 Gal. 5.1 2 3. If in the Conclusion by the sign of the Covenant of grace be meant as the words namely baptism now import the rite of Christian Baptism and in the Minor it be meant of the Command of Circumcision then there is a fault of the syllogism in the form it consisting of four terms If in the Minor iâ be meant of the sign of the Covenant indefinite which is neither Baptism nor Circumcision I deny there is such a Command Gen. 17.7 9. and the syllogism hath also fourth terms Two other forms he hath pag. 9. 2. Form of argument from Gen. 17. is this To whom the Covenant in force runs in the same tenour in the New Testament as in the Old to them the application of the first sign or seal of the New Testament may be applied as well as the first of the Old Testament But this tenour of the Covenant of grace still in force is as true and doth as truely run to a believing Gentile I am thy God and the God of thy seed as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo the first seal of the Covenant may be applied to believers children now in the New Testament as well as in the Old to Abrahams The Major is plain in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant and the application of the first seal are Knit into a dependence one upon another I am the God of thee and thy seed V. 7 8. Therefore thou shalt circumcise every male V. 9. c. The Minor is unquestioned of any that I know Answer 1. The thing to be concluded was that Baptism may be applied but baptism and the first seal of the Covenant I do not take to be all one Baptism or Circumcision I do no where finde in Scripture called the seal of the Covenant much less the first seal and why the blood of Christ or the spirit of Christ or the oath of God may not be called the first seal of the Covenant as well as these I know not again the Conclusion was to be may be applied to infant-children of believers where as the conclusion is may be applyed to believers children And the thing to be concluded was simply baptism may be applied to Infants of believers whereas it is propounded comparatively now
the Messiah c. The like may be said of the ends of Circumcision and the occasion of appointing it But let us view Master Drew's proof of the Minor The reason saith he of the command for signing Infants of Believers under the Law with the first signe or seal of the Covenant was this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as is evident Gen. 17.7 8. compared with the 9.10 and 11. verses where this promise of God and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another I will establish my Covenant between me and thee c. to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee therefore thou shalt Circumcise every male as a token of the Covenant vers 11. But this same reason of the command continues in force under the Gospel God doth as truely say to every Believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles so he is called Rom. 4.11 Therefore I may conclude that Believers under the Gospel have the same command for signing their Infants with the first seal of the Covenant of promise which now is baptism as Abraham had to signe his under the Law with the first signe c. which then was Circumcision and now Sirs if the blessing of Abraham be come upon you and if you be heirs according to the promise you may easily finde a command for Baptizing your Infant seed Answ. If Master Drew would prove what is to be proved he should prove that the proper formal reason obliging to the duty of Circumcision Gen. 17.9 10 11. was the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee But that is false For the formal reason being put the thing is put without any other thing and it being not put the thing is not put though other things be put But if the promise had been put yet Abraham had not been obliged to Circumcise unless a command were put and the command being put Abraham was bound to Circumcise though God had made no promise Therefore though the promise might be a motive to do it yet as Master Marsâall truely confesseth Defence of his Sermon pag. 182. the formal reason of the Jews being Circumcised was the command and therefore till Master Drew shew we have the same command to Baptize Infants as Abraham had to Circumcise Infants he can never shew we have the same or equal reason for Infant-baptism as was for Infant-circumcision But Master Drew thinks to prove his Minor from Gen. 17.7 8. compared with the 9 10 11. vers Where it is evident saith he this promise of God I will be thy God and the God of thy seed and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another But he doth but dictate without any cleer explication or thorough consideration of what he saith For 1. He doth not plainly tell us that the dependence he imagines to be one upon another of the application of the first seal and the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is upon that promise alone and not upon the other promises vers 4 5 6 8. And if he do so mean yet he brings nothing to pâove it and it âs unequal he should expect we should take it on his word sith if we gather any thing from the placing of the words the reason of the command vers 9 10 11 12. may as well be from the promise of giving him and his seed the land oâ Canaan vers 8. as the promise vers 7. 2. Whereas the promise vers 7. hath diverse senses one so as to be meant of Abraham as a natural father and his seed according to the flesh another of Abraham as a spiritual father and his spiritual seed he neither brings a word nor do I think can why the reason of the Command vers 9 10 11 12. should be from the promise made to Abraham as a spiritual father and to his spiritual seed which alone is for his purpose to bring Gentile-believers children to be in the promise rather than to Abraham as a natural Father and to his natural seed especially those of them that were to inherit the land of Canaan yea it is manifest that if the dependence were as he saith it is to be interpreted of Abrahams seed by nature sith the command there was given to the natural seed of Abraham only and them that joyned to them 3. Nor doth Mr. Drew shew what dependence one upon another they are knit into whether contingent or necessary or if necessary in what degree of necessity Whether de omni per se or quatenus ipsum This last seems to be most likely and the dependence this To whomsoever that promise is made that person is to have the first seal and whosoever is to have the first seal to that person the promise is made But this were evidently false For it appears from v. 19. that the promise was not made to Ishmael and yet he was to have the first seal others of Abrahams house had not the promise who were to be signed with Circumcision and the females had the promise made to them and yet were not to be signed If it be said they were vertually signed it serves not Master Drew's turn who asserts a dependence of the promise and actual signing in the person federate 4. Nor doth he shew from what term or words his imagined dependence is evident The onely term I know he or any other gathers the supposed dependence from is vers 9. therefore But in the Hebrew it is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which in the most usual sense is And thou noting a further addition to his speech not an illation of one thing from another And so the Tigurines read tu And thou Pareus Tu autum But thou Piscator Tu vero Thou verily So that the evidence is very small which is from so uncertain a light 5. Nor doth he nor can he shew from the comparing Gen. 17.7 8. with 9 10 11. any dependence of application of any other first signe than Circumcision upon the promise there The Command of an indfinite first seal there or elswhere to believers Infants is a meer figment 6. That dependence which is implyed by the term therfore is not at all such as intimates a right competent to Infants but a duty enjoyned to parents which Infants are nor capable of And therefore if any see a command for Baptizing of Infants in that place it is but a parallax or decepâio visus a mistake of sight as in him that thinks he sees two Suns or two Moons at once The Minor also in his Argument is to be proved SECT IV. The Covenant Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. was a mixt Covenant BUt afore âe comes to prove it he brings in an objection Gods Covenant with Abraham was not a pure Gospel-Covenant as appears
c. and restraining that promise in the Evangelical sense onely to the children of Abraham which were elect by God Nor is there a word Act. 2.39 to make it good in Master Drew's sense For 1. Master Drew proves not that the promise Act. 2.39 must needs be the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed His argument is It must needs relate to a former engagement to the Jews and therefore to that Gen. 17.7 But this is to argue a genere ad speciem affirmative it relats to a former engagement therfore to this which Logicians deny to be good proof But saith he I know not what engagement this can have reference to if not unto the promise Gen. 17.7 I answer though he know not and so may be one of those that are blind and yet have eyes which he chargeth on his opposits yet others see other promises namely that to David of raising up Christ to sit on his throne mentioned Acts 2.30 or the promise of the Holy Gost mentioned V. 33. or the promise of blessing mentioned Acts 3.25 Any of which may be the Promise meant Acts 2.39 more probably then that Gen. 17.7 2. Where it is said The promise is to you if we either consider the scope of the Apostle or other parrallel texts Acts 3.26 Acts 13.32 33. the promise is is as much as to say the promise made to David Acts 2.30 or to Abarham Acts 3.25 is fulfilled in raising up Christ or the Promise of the spirit is fulfilled in the shedding forth of its gifts of which Promise mentioned V. 17.18 Piscator and others understand it and that for you that is for your good blessing and your children and all that are afarr off as many as the Lord our God shall call not as M. Drew means there is a promise of being a God to you and every one of your children continually to be fulfilled as soon as ever they are in being 3. It is false which M. Drew presupposeth as if the meaning were the Promise is to you that is the Promise of being your God is to you believers and to your children that is to all your Infant children as children of believers whether Jews or Gentiles For 1. that speech is made to the Jews as M. Drews own words seem to import onely and their children and not to Gentiles and their children 2. It is false that when it is said the Promise is to you the meaning is to you as believers For neither were they then believers as I prove in my Ample disquisit Sect 5. nor is it certain whether some of them were ever believers the occasion and scope seems to intimate rather that they were considered there as persons who had crucified Christ 3. Neither is it true that the Promise is to their children that is to their infant children as their children M. Gataker discept de bapt Infant vi ãâã pag. 12. saith thus To the obtaining the promise as well repentance as partaking of baptism at least in this place is exacted so that hence the promise of remission of sins cannot be proved to be made to Infants when they are entered by baptism unless also they repent 4 nor do I know how it can be true which M. Drew sayes in any sense for his purpose that God hath promised to every believing Gentile now to be the God of his seed as he did to Abraham by which he would expound the words Acts 23.9 the promise is to your children For in respect of spiritual blessings accompanying salvation it is not true every believers child is not elect in the Covenant of saving grace a child of the resurrection nor in respect of outward Ecclesiastical privileges Neither did God Promise Circumcision to every child of Abraham not to the males under 8. dayes old nor to the females nor hath it any colour to interpret I will be the God of thy seed that is they shall be circumcised much less that God promised to every Gentile believers child he should be Baptized or have right to Baptism sure not to professed unbelievers to abortives or still born Infants For my part with all M. Drews light I cannot understand how according to M. Drews exposition the promise Gen. 17.7 is inforce and applyable to believers under the Gospel as he saith Nor do I conceive it true which he ads If this stand good then the Command for signing our Infants with the first sign of the Covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good to For were it granted that it were true that God doth as truly say to every believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles yet there is not a word in that text or any other to prove that therefore every believers Infant child is to be baptized it being false that the Covenant of grace doth of it selfe intitle to Baptism as I have proved in my Examen part 3. S. 1. in my letter to M. Baile or Additions to my Appology Sect. 3. in the Ample disquisition Sect. 5. where also it is proved that though the promise Acts 2.39 be alleged why they should be baptized V. 38. yet not as the reason of their right to Baptism as M. Drew makes it but as a motive encouraging them to it as their duty and in performing of it first to move then to repent and then to be baptized The reason is not as M. Drew makes it The promise is to you and and your children therefore it is their and your right to be baptized and the minister ought to do it to you and your Infants but this the promise is to you and your children therefore you and they ought and may be encouraged to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for remission of sins nor is there a word in the text or elsewhere to prove that dictate of M. Drew God will own believers children therefore he will have them markt for his even in infancy by baptism more truely saith M. Gataker discept Infant de bapt infant vi Eâfâc pag. 9. Acts 2.38 39. is nothing found concerning Infants to be baptized In that they are Commanded to repent and to be baptized unto the remission of sins it is altogether like to that saying of the Lord Christ he that believeth and shall be baptized shall attain salvation Matth. 16.16 But M. Drew thinks to take off the exceptions that are laid against the witness which this place brings to prove the birth priviledge of believers children under the Gospel The first exception is that the promise is of extraordinary gifts of the spirit and he answers This doth not sute with the promise made Gen. 17.7 which was to be performed to Abrahams children and yet they had not those gifts But 1. this Answer goes upon his mistake that the promise Acts 2.39 must be that Gen. 17.7 2. he supposeth that the
are in that respect Abrahams seed M. Drew adds But yet further 3. T is plain in the Gospel that faith maketh a believer the child of Abraham yea and a surer heir to the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed then carnal descent from Abrahams Loyns doth Abraham had 2. seeds one descending from Ishmael and onother from Isaac all that came from Abraham were not children Rom. 9.7 But in Isaac shall thy seed be called Isaac was his special seed and typed out his believing seed under the Gospel for ver 8. they which are the children of the flesh these are not that is not in so peculiar a manner the children of God as the believing seed for the children of the promise are the seed the seed by way of eminencie that is the prime seed and Mark I pray you how the same Apostle explaines and applyes this to our purpose Gal. 4.28 29. The Galatians were Gentils but being believers we saith the Apostle as Isaac was are the children of promise and so the special seed of Abraham the Galatians were no more of Abrahams natural seed then we are but by faith they became his prime seed and heirs apparent to all the promises as Isaac was who is said in the next ver to be born after the spirit as well as Gospel believers are And sirs shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abrahams prime seed and halve the promises to them when they are full and large to his worser seed The Appostle will not suffer this Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise which surely must needs be according to the full extent of that promise made unto our Father Abraham for if it be not ours so fully as it was his then we are not heirs according to the promise if our seed be exempted it fals much short of what was said to him I will be thy God and the God of thy seed And mark friends I beseech you that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 In thee shall all Nations be blessed not onely his natural seed that was but one Nation but all that were of the faith shall be blessed as children of what nation soever ver 7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10 11. to this end that he might be the Father of all them that believe though not circumcised And truely I wonder since the Gâspel is so clear that believers are Abrahams children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or priviledge wherewithall he was invested by that promise to which they are more sure heirs then any of his natural seed as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities Answer the thing to be proved is that to the natural seed of Gentile believers God hath promised to be a God To prove which divers places are brought which do manifestly refute it That of Ro. 9.7 8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the seed to whom God had promised to be God but that in Isaac his seed should be called And the same is determined Gal. 4.28 that Isaac was the child of the promise and not the son of the bondwoman and that no child of any man is a child of the promise but he that is born after the Spirit And Gal. 3.29 is meant of those onely that are the sons of God by faith in Christ ver 26. and from the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8 in thee shall all nations be blessed he infers ver 9. onely of believers so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 4.10.11 Abraham is said to be the Father of believers or as it is ver 12. those that walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Wherefore I may much more justly wonder that learned Protestants who so commonly say that elect persons onely are in the Covenant of grace from Rom. 9.7 8. when they dispute against Arminians should yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profession a believers natural child whether elect or a believer or not is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 when they dispute for paedobaptism though by such doctrine they make the word of God to fall it being not true of Ishmael Esau and thousands of others of both of Abrahams and other believers seed God hath not nor will be a God to them T is true believing Gentils are heirs of the promise made to Abraham of blessing or justification by faith as he had but it is false every believer is heir of every priviledg Abraham had none besides him is Father of the faithfull as Abraham or hath Gods promise to his natural seed as Abraham had to his spiritual yea or to his natural None hath the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed Acts 3.25 nor any that his posterity should be graffed in again as it is assured to Abrahams seed Rom. 11.28 29. The imagined priviledge that God would be the God of his naturall seed was never promised to Abrahams natural posterity as such Yet it is false that a believers child is a more sure heir of the promise then any of Abrahams natural seed For though God hath not promised to be a God to all Abrahams posterity yet he hath to some which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentils natural child M. D. doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the promise robbed believing parents of any comfort or privilege wherewith Abraham was invested by that promise Gen. 17.7 perverting the text as if when God said he would be a God to Abraham by Abraham were meant every believer and when he saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed it were meant of every belivers natural seed whether believers or not About which he and other paedobaptists particularly the Assembly at Westminster in the Directory about baptism do but abuse people and lead fond parents who swallow down Preachers sayings without Scripture proof into a fools paradise by telling them that the promise is made to a believer and his seed that God will be a God to a believer and his child and that Infants of believers dying in their Infancy are saved by the parents faith and by this there is assurance of their salvation But Master Drew once more urgheth Rom. 11 17. that the term graffing shews believing Gentils come in with their seed or twigs that grow from them else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off But I have so fully proved the ingraffing to be by giving faith according to election and that none but elect persons are ingraffed according to the Apostles meaning and that ingraffing is into the invisible Church in my Ample disquisition being the first part of
these false suppositions that God had promised to be God to those whom he commanded to be circumcised and that the promise of being their God was the formal reason of their being circumcised that when God promised to be a God of to Gentiles he meant it of external adoption and priviledges The consequence he would prove by four Argument 2. The promise of propriety in God was not a specialty therefore the Infaints of Christians being certainly no less in the promise then were the Infants of Jews aforetime they are rightly judged to be in it as they were Where the conclusion is altered which was to be proved therefore if the Infants of the Jews were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God then the Infants of Christians are rightly judged to be in that promise and instead thereof that which should have been the antecedent the Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews Infants aforetime is made the chief part of the conclusion and in stead of the right antecedent this ambiguous antecedent is put that promise of proriety in God was not a specialty which he says he would prove by seven arguments but sets not down which branch of the promise was not a specialty whether that I will be thy God or that I will be the God of thy seed nor in what sense it was not a specialty nor doth his speech that it was not a specialty appear equipollent to that he should have proved The Infants of Christians are certainly no less in the promise then were the Jews dnfants aforetime but he dictates so ambiguously and indistinctly that more labour will be necessary to understand him then to refute him He tells us the promise of propriety in God was not peculiar to Abraham and visible professors and Abrahams natural seed where he supposeth that the promise I will he thy God and the God of thy seed was true of meer visible professors and Abrahams natural seed which is most false and contrary to Rom. 9.6 7 8. Luk. 20.36 37 38. He brings the words Exod. 12.48 49 the stranger was as our home-born and there was one law for both which are spoken meerly of allowance for them to eat the Passeover with them to prove a like propriety of the Infants of visible professors of the Gentiles in the promise of propriety in God Gen. 17.7 He brings Gal. 4.28 which was spoken onely of true Believers born after the Spirit to prove visible professors and their Infants to be judged in the promise of propriety in God He saith Isaac was in the promise as an Infant of Believing parent whereas Paul saith no for then Ishmael and Esau had been in the promise but by special calling or election Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. He applies those texts Gal. 3.14 Rom. 11.17 Rom. 15.8 9. Gen. 17 5 7. to prove a promise to every Gentile visible professour of faith and their Infants which are onely verified in the sense the Apostle useth them of true Believers as Abraham was who are justified as he was He allegeth that which the Apostle Rom. 11.28 saith The children are beloved for the Fathers as it were meant of Infants of every Gentile visible professor which is spoken onely of the elect Israelites and the ancient Patriarchs Abraham c. That which is said Psal. 138. 1 3. of children of him that fears God sitting round about his table like Olive plants to prove visible professors and their partaking in the promise of propriety in God He saith The former part of that promise I will be a God to thee Gen. 17.7 is undeniably common to all Believers which in truth is undeniably proper t Abraham not simply as a Believer but either as a natural Father or Father o Believers according to the spiritual part of the promise He saith Christians are in this dispensation as Jews were in the former they are called as they were an holy Nation a peculiar people a royal priesthood 1 Pet. 2 9. Tit 2.14 And every Nation receiving the faith as the Nation of the Jews did and in which there is a national agreement in doctrine worship and discipline as was in the Nation of the Jews is to be accounted to the Lord in every age Psal. 22.30 even Egypt and Assyria with Israel Isa. 19.21 and many call Abraham Father who obtained the Fatherhood of many Nations Gen. 17.5 and may be accounted a national Church no less hen that Nation was whereby those speeches 1 Pet. 2.9 T it 2.14 Gen. 17.5 as expounded Rom. 4.17 which are meant onely of the elect and true Believers of every Nation are applied to a national Church like the Jews consisting of a great part of either ignorant persons that know little or nothing of Christianity or persecutors of godliness profanely despising the word and hating the godly He applies that Mat. 18.10 little ones who are said vers 6. to believe in Christ and the offending of whom hath so great a penalty to little one in age He applies Jer. 30.20 which is spoken of the Jews upon their return from captivity as appears vers 18.21 concerning their prosperity in Canaan to the restitution of their Infants to an initial seal at the calling of them to the Christian faith whereas if it were so meant the Prophet should foretell that the Jews children at their calling to Christ should be as a foretime that is should be circumcised as they were before the Prophets time not baâtized More things there are liable to exception in his arguments whereof what pertains to the text Act. 2.39 Rom. 11.17 1. Cor. 7.14 is sufficiently discussed in ây Ample dsquisition of those texts That which concerns the reasons that God promiseth mercy to thousands and such like arguments being urged more fully by Master B. I shall answer when I meet with them in his book His arguments pag. 18. to prove his Consequence The Infants of Chaistians are rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they are to be baptized are insufficient The first is from circumcision of Infants to which hath been often answered That was done by vertue of the Command not by vertue of the promise and therefore without the like Command the like promise if it were granted would not prove the like practice What is said of John Baptists and the Apostles not denying baptism to any whom they judged to be in the promise seems to intimate that they baptized men because they judged them to be in the promise But there is not a word thereof in any of the Evangelists but their comming to John confessing their sins glorifying God in embracing his Counsel professing faith as the reason of their admission to baptism To his second reason Being in the promise is the reason rendered by the Apostles for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38 39. Therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized I answer 1. He says not truely that being
natural seed many Gentile believers have had their children persecutors not visible Church-members and may have still yea in that sense which Mr. Geree himself expounds it it was only verified of the natural posterity of Abraham yet not of every particular child of his but of the nation till Christs comming As for the dictate of Mr. G. they that do the works of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the covenant it intimates some promises of the covenant to be essential some not some ordinary some extraordinary parts of the covenant But these are new distinctions with which I meet not elsewhere nor know I how to understand what promises he makes ordinary nor what extraordinary what essential parts of the covenant what not That Covenant being but once made in my conceit therefore had all the promises of the same sort whether ordinary or extraordinary and a covenant being an aggregate of promises contains the promises as the matter and the making together as the form which are the essential parts of the Covenant there 's no promise but being the matter of the covenant is an essential part or rather all the promises together are the matter and each promise is an integral part of the whole number of promises And therfore his speech is not easie to be understood I grant that they who are of the faith of Abraham may claim the promise of Justification and other saving blessings But for visible Church-membership of natural posterity or other domestique promises made to Abraham neither the natural posterity of Abraham nor the truest believing Gentile can lay a just claim to them but that notwithstanding that promise God is free to make their children or the children of Gentile or Jew Infidels his people his visible church and to settle his worship with them Mr. Geree writes thus and that this privilege of having God to be the God of our seed was not personal and peculiar to Abraham but propagated to his seed may hence appear because the same in effect is promised to other godly Jews which is here promised to Abraham Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Answ. The promise to Abraham according to Mr. Gs. exposition was That he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privilege of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Sure this is not the same in effect with that Deut. 30.6 which is nothing of external privileges of a Church but of circumcising their hearts and the heart of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they might live which can be true only of the elect Besides it is promised to them at their return from captivity and upon their returning to the Lord and obeying his voice according to all that he commanded them that day they and their children with all their heart and all their soul v. 2. which sure cannot be ordinarily applied to them in their infancy and therefore this text is very impertinently alleged to prove an external privilege to infants of meer reputed believers even in their infancy Mr. Baxter himself in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. hath these words The text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant-state but in their adult Deut. 30. For first verse 2. the condition of the promise is expresly required not only of the parent but of the children themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the same acts which are required of the parents viz. to return to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of the heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the act ver 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God so that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving Mr. G. yet adds And thus much that place Act. 2.39 doth hold forth and contribute to infant-baptism to shew that children are comprehended in the Covenant with their fathers and both these last promises being of Evangelical privileges they must needs be communicable to all under the Gospel-covenant so then it remains that God still is in covenant with every believer and his seed Answ. That Acts 2.39 neither shews that children of believers are comprehended universally and necessarily with their parents nor contributes ought to infant-baptism is shewed in the forepart of this Review s. 5. and notwithstanding any thing said by Mr. Geree it yet remains to be proved that God is in Covenant with every believer and his seed The rest of that section of Mr. Geree is about my expounding Mr. Ms. second conclusion which I shall review as far as is meet when I come to it I have dispatched at last the answering those that argue syllogistically from the covenant and seal for infant-baptism But most go another way by laying down conclusions and framing hypotheses and I proceed to take a view of their writings SECT XVII Mr. Cottons The Assemblies and London Ministers way of arguing for Infant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the methode of the future progress in the Review expressed MR. John Cotton in his Dialogue ch 3. goes this way and expresseth himself in four things That 1. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 2. Gave him a commandment to receive the sign of circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace to him and his seed Gen. â7 9 10. 3. The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed now to believers and our seed 4. And hath given us baptism in the room of circumcision The Assembly at Westminster in their confession of faith chap 25. art 2. assert That the visible Church consists of all the children of those that profess the true Religion and cite to prove it 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Ezekiel 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 and 17.7 of these one of the Texts to wit Gen. 3.15 I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant-baptism to my remembrance except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditional covenant made with all Adams posterity I do not imagine what use that Text is of to prove infants of those that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members Whether the seed of the woman be meant of all men or by excellency of Christ or of true believers which are all the senses I conceive yet how from any of these should be gathered that infants of professours of the true Religion as such and not as of humane kinde should be meant by the seed of the woman or that the bruising of the
he speaks thus And he âaies Arise and be baptized which are not Peters words Acts. 2.38 but the words of Ananias to Saul Acts. 22.16 My tenth exception was usually Paedobaptists in their paraphrases put not in any thing to answer repent v. 38. which is true though Master Stephens be alleged in my sixth exception as paraphrasing it by covenant for your selves and your children Master Blake grants the Apostle presseth to a duty and such as was to have repentance precedent in his then hearers If so then he doth not infer a right to bapâism barely from their interest in the promise What he saith right and duty very well stand together and that the Apostle fitly makes use of their interest as a motive I deny not It is true the Apostle mentioned more to whom the promise was then he then perswaded to repent for he mentions the promise as pertaining to the absent or unborn but he perswades none to be baptized but the penitent nor mentions any to whom the promise was but the called of God To my Argument from the precedency of repentance to baptism Acts. 2.38 against infant-baptism he answers as before ch 37. to which I have replyed before As for Master Stephens his paraphrase avowed by Master Blake as the Apostles meaning that if the Jewes who had crucified Christ would receive him as the particular Messiah the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation it is far from the Apostles minde For the Apostle doth not make the eontinuance of the promise as the benefit consequent on their receiving Christ and the receiving of Christ the condition of continuance of the promise but the being of the promise is alleged as a thing already existent nor is there any likelyhood that the Apostle Peter would urge them to so hard duties as repentance receiving Christ by so slender a reason as the continuance of the promise of visible Church-membership and baptism to them and their infant children yea the text it self shewes that the things by which he would perswade them to receive Christ were the assurance of remission of sins and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost and the alleging the promise v 39 is to take away the great objection against these great benefits from their crucifying of Christ and their imprecation on them and their children Matth. 27.25 If then Master Stephens build his word of command to baptize father and child on that paraphrase he builds on a foundation which will not hold Master Blake addes To this the word repent refers as may be made plain But what he means by this assertion I do not well understand it being ambiguous what he means by this whether the paraphrase of Master Stephens that the same promise should still continue to them and their children in the new dispensation if they would receive Jesus as the particular Messiah or the word of command to baptize father and child and in like manner what kind of reference he means whether as a medium to prove it or as a motive to it If he mean the same with that which his allegations seem to tend to his meaning is that the promise of visible Church-state was to the Jewes as they had been formerly if they did receive Christ and the term repent refers to it as the motive Now though I grant that the promise Acts. 2.39 is alleged as a motive in a moral way to repentance v 38. yet I deny such a promise to be meant v. 39. as Mr. Bl. and Mr. Stephens fancy Nor do any of Mr. Blakes allegatione prove it For Acts 3.25 doth not speak of such a covenant as Master Blake means but of that Evangelical covenant wherein God promised Christ and saving blessings by him Nor are the Jews there termed children of the Covenant onely but also of the Prophets Now the Prophets there are the same with all the Prophets v. 24. and those Jewes to whom Peter spake were no otherwise their children then in that they had been raised up of and sent to that nation in their predecessors times and they are in like manner called children of the Covenant because they were the posterity of those ancestors specially Abraham to whom that Covenant was made But this doth not prove that they were then Gods visible people that the Covenant of visible Church-state did belong to them and their children or that such a covenant is meant Acts 2.39 What Master Blake allegeth from Matth. 8.12 Matth. 21.43 that they were in danger to be cast off doth prove rather the contrary thet the nation or body of the Jewish people who had rejected Christ were not in covenant with God and although those particular persons Acts 2.37 to whom Peter spake v. 38 39. were more awakened then others yet they could not be then said to be in the covenant of visible Church-state being not then believers in Christ. What Master Blake allegeth and infers from Matth. 21.31 32. Luke 7.29 30. I assent to but know not what it makeâ for his purpose Yea me thinks his calling baptism to which Peter exhorted entrance into a new covenant-way crosseth Master Stephens paraphrase of continuing the same promise to them and their children In his third allegation he misreports me as if I excluded all consideration of right in the Jewes and their children from those words which are Acts 2.39 Whereas that which I said was this that from the promise Acts 2.39 what ever right be imported by it Peter doth not infer their being baptized as a right or privilege accruing to them in manner of a legal title and claim but as a duty to which he perswades in a moral way What good interpretation I give of those words v. 39. suitable to Peters exhortation I have set down Exam. pag. 61. Review part 1. pag. 41. and elsewhere Master Blake if he could should have overthrown it Master Cobbets exception is answered in the next section Mr. Bl. hath been oft told that the children are mentioned Acts 2.39 because of the imprecation Matth. 27.25 That the words Acts 2.38 39. are carried in that way that interest in Covenant and Covenant-Seals in Mr. Bls sense formerly ran is supposed but not proved by him That the Jews yet persisting in their adherence to Moses not embracing Christ should be in covenant and have thereby a right to baptism is such a dotage as me thinks Master Blake should disclaim That the words of the text Acts 2.39 hold out such a covenant-right as Master Blake imagins in Scripture-language according to the grand charter of heaven I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is said but not proved by Master Blake Whether my exceptions against the Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38 39. or Master Blakes answers are frivolous shifts the intelligent Reader will perceive My Antipaedobaptism is enough to refute Master John Goodwins charge and my censure of his interpretations others have made good As for
ye see and heare Acts 2.33 to you and your children and all that are afar off that is for their benefit by moving them to own Christ. But me thinks if the promise were meant of that gift it should be meant thus The promise is to you that is God hath promised to give to each of you c. this gift of the holy Ghost because the words immediately before v. 38. are and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost But thus the proposition should not be true For all afar off who were called of God had not that gift and therefore it was not promised them Nor had this sense been so fit as to comfort them sith that gift might be given and was to persons whom God rejected As for the other exposition that the promise is that God will be a God to them and their children as to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 it cannot be the promise meant Acts 2.39 For 1. there is not the least intimation in the text of that promise 2. There was no such promise in all the Scripture that God would be a God to those to whom Peter then spake and to their children as their children no nor such a promise as this I will be a God to a believer and his seed For if this promise were made to the seed of every believer then either God keepes it or not If not then he breaks his word if he do then he is a God to them But that is not true For neither in saving graces nor in Ecclesiastical priviledges v.g. Church-membership and baptism is God a God to every one that is the seed or natural child of a believer Yet if it were true it had been false being spoken to those Jewes who were not then believers nor perhaps many of them evet believers in Christ. And it is most false that the Christian Church-membership and baptism did belong to the Jews as Jews by vertue of any covenant made with that nation For then John Baptist did ill to expostulate with them for coming to his baptism Matth. 3.7 and to disswade them from alleging they had Abraham to their father v. 9. and to tell them of another sort of children of Abraham that had more right to it then they Yea John the Baptist and the Apostles did ill to require personal repentance and believing if they had right to such priviledges by a promise without them Nor is the promise said to be to any children but those that are called of God and therefore not to infants uncalled and consequently this Scripture is very ill applyed to prove federall holyness of believers infants Master Cobbet addes Secondly it is sending of Christ or of Christ sent But let it be considered 1. That the Apostle doth not say the promise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the Fathers with respect unto them or in reference to Christ who was not now to come but already come as the Apostle proveth from v. 3 to 37. Nor is it the use of the Scripture when mentioning promises as fulfilled to express it thus in the present tense the promise is to you or to such and such but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same for which let Rom. 15.8 1 John 2.25 Ephes. 3.6 Nehe. 9.8 23. 2 Chron. 6.15 1 Kings 8.56 Acts 2.16 17 33. and 13.32 33. Josh. 21.45 and 23.14 Matth. 1.22 23. and 21.4 Luke 1.54 55 68 69. and Psal. 111.9 Rom. 11.26 27. be considered Ans. 1. How the verb substantive is in the present tense and the promise referred to Christ who was now come agrees with the words and scope of the Apostle is already shewed And my sense is like or the same with Master Ms. when he said in his Sermon pa. 17. The plain strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed and the new Annot. in Locum The promise is to you Christ is promised both to Jewes and Gentiles But the Jewes had the first place Which is agreeable to the speeches of Mary Luke 1.54 55. and of Zacharias v. 68 69 71 72 73 74 75. 2. It is true that the expression in that manner is not usual and it is confessed that in the places cited and many more the fulfilling of a promise is otherwise expressed But what then doth it follow that is not the meaning which I give If it did by the same reason neither Master Cobbets is right For it is usual to express a promise belonging to some of a thing yet to be done in some other expressions as 1 John 2.25 2 Pet. 1.4 yea in the place Rom. 9.4 of which Master Cobbet pa. 31. saith for the promise iâ to you or belongs to you as Rom. 9.4 hath it the expression is not in the Dative case as Acts 2.39 but in the Genitive But it is needfull to consider how Master Cobbet himself expounds the words Sect. 1. He saith thus The promise is to your children not was to you c. as intending any legal blessing but a promise then in force after Christs ascension to effect some promised blessing ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã used to signify the free promise or covenant of grace to which they had visible right Sect. 3. remission of sins may not be excluded but must be one principal thing intended It is that promise to which baptism the seal is annexed Sect. 4. Nor was Abrahams charter less then what here avowed by the Apostle Scil. that the promise even of sins did belong to the Jewes and to their children in respect of external right and administration and no more is pleaded for But repent and be baptized de futuro for the promise in praesenti is to you Scil. in respect of external right Sect. 7. And this promise here mentioned Acts 2.38 39. containing in it remission of sins and so the righteousness of faith The promise of remission of sins is or belongeth to you Scil. in the external right and administration of it So then according to Master Cobbets exposition the promise meant is remission of sins and of this it is said that it is not it was to them and the manner how is that it is to them or it belongs to them in âhe external right and administration of it The promise or covenant he means here belonging to them to be Abrahams charter Gen. 17.7 Jerem. 31.33 34. holding out at least an external interest therein to them being Jewes not yet believing Fathers or repenting for that is rather mentioned as exerted after many words besides v. 40 41. yea rather they were offensive members of the Jewish Church which was then a true visible Gospel-Church they were as persons under censure though they had jus ad baptismum yet not jus in baptismo without repentance yet they were covenant-Fathers and dispensers of the external right of it to their children though their children were not
Abraham 2. That Abraham should be considered rather as a pattern to fathers then as a particular person is said without any proof nor is it true 1. Because it is understood in Scripture as meant of Abraham as a particular person Gal. 3.16 c. 2. Because if he were considered as a pattern the promise should be to others as to him Gen. 17 7. but that is not true the promise is made to none besides as to Abraham Gen. 17.7 And whereas Master Cobbet observes that the promise to them and their children cannot be meant of the children as their children after the Spirit because they could not be such spiritual fathers to any children of theirs themselves being not yet such relates as believing fathers nor having such correlates as children after the Spirit this doth plainly shew that the promise to them and their children is not all one with a promise to believers and their children and the mention of the children Acts 2.39 is not to intimate any priviledge arising to the child from the faith of the parent For as Master Cobbet saith truly as yet they acted not faith and repentance nor doth Peter say The promise is or belongs to you for you have repented and consequently believed As for Master Cobbets inference that if thâ imprecation of the Jewes Matth. 27.25 were the occasion of Peters words Acts 2.39 then the promise must be also to their babes on whom they wished Christs blood else the plaister were too narrow for their wounds rising from the guilt of bloud wished upon their children including and not excluding their babes it followes not For 1. Though babes be children yet children indefinitely put without any universal sign may be meant of others then babes or infants 2. The wish may be meant of infants and the promise also yet not to take place or to be accomplished on them or to them in their infancy That curse and that promise which is made to a mans children being for present infantâ is verifyed if it happen to them at twenty years old they being then thâââme persons which they were when they were but a day old 3. Will Master Cobbet assert the promise must be as large as the curse If so then the promise must belong to their children elder or younger whether believing or unbelieving pânitent or impenitent for the wish was on all absolutely But Master Cobbet I presume will not assert the promise of remission of sins was in praesenti to all the children of the Jewes to whom Peter spake elder and younger believing and unbelieving penitent and impenitent in respect of external right and administration Therefore he must limit the term your children if he will have his own exposition to hold good and consequently the children Acts 2.39 must be fewer then those the imprecation lighted on Mat. 27.25 Sect. 5. That which Master Cobbet saith that those who say the promise made to Abraham of sending Christ and now fulfilled is to them in effect say as those that expound the promise is to you that is is offered to you is not right For the fulfilling notes something past the offer is of something to be yet done or attained yet it is true that the speech of Peter did contain not onely an offer but also an assurance of remission of sins to the called by vertue of the promise fulfilled in Christs coming Of the sense of the words Acts 3.25 I have spoken somewhat before The terms children of the prophets and of the covenant are appropriated to the Jewes as Rom. 9 4. they being the onely people to whom the prophets were sent as Beza annot in locum id est âi âstis quibus peculiariter destinati fuerunt prophetae quibuscum foedus est sancitum ex Hebraeorum idiotismo quâm supra aliquoties annotavimus Huc pertinet quod ait Paulus Rom. 9.4 And when he saith they were children of the covenant made with the fathers and not of the fathers with whom the covenant is made the intent is not to shew that it 's meant of Church and federal interest in them as covenant-fathers and dispensers or to shew that the covenant was as seed by vertue whereof they considered as foederally and ecclesiastically priviledged did spring in Master Cobbets sense of outward Church-membership and initiating ordinance but the plain meaning is that they were the people to whom the first exhibition and tender of the Gospel did belong in that they were the posterity of the Fathers with whom the covenant was made and so the Jewes had a priority of not onely external interest in the covenant but also internal though when the Gentiles were called the priviledges of the covenant were equal to the Gentiles with the Jewes and the condition of the promise that is the obtaining remission of sins by the fulfilling of the promise is equally to Jew and Gentile savingly believing Sect. 7. Master Cobbets conceit of the term afar off Acts 2.39 that it is meant of their being strangers from actual interests in the covenants of promise and Common-wealth of Israel or the visible political Church Ephes. 2.11 12 13. supposeth 1. The terms ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã those afar off Acts 2.39 to be the same with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã who were sometimes afar off Ephes. 2.13 But the phrases are not the same and it is for reasons formerly given more likely that the remoteness Acts 2.39 is meant of place or descent 2. that the remoteness Ephes. 2.13 was in respect of external Church interest and so in like manner Acts 2.39 But Ephes. 2.13 the remoteness was such as was taken away by the blood of Christ which is more then external Church-interest and the nearness such as you and your children Acts 2.39 had not then attained to but were then afar off from God or as it is v. 18. had not access by one Spirit unto the Father And therefore Master Cobbets sayings that the Jewes and their children Acts 2.39 were not then when Peter spake afar off as the târm is meant Ephes. 2 13. but rather nigh in that sense and that the promise is to them actually quoad hominem and to the other that is the Genteles afar off intentionally quoad Deum even whilest afar off and uncalled are but conceits arising from the mistakes of Peters speech Acts 2.39 and Pauls Ephes. 2.13 It is true to the Jewes indefinitely that is to that nation or people did the Adoption and promises belong yet not to every particular person of that nation For as it is said Rom. 9.4 To whom pertaineth the adoption and the promises so it is said v. 4 5. To whom pertain the service of God of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came and yet these things not true of every Israelite It is true Moses made a covenant Deut. 29.15 with the unborn which were not actually existent in Church-estate and humane being but that this was a covenant wherein Covenant-grace is expressed
this was the reason why even the Jewes circumcised what ever their interest in the promise should be were bound to witness by baptism Christ to be come But this though true and such as shewes a manifâst difference between ciâcumcision and baptism in their use and confirmes the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet sith thereby neither is the argument from Peters requiring repentance to baptism infringed which argues that therefore covenant-interest is not sufficient title to baptism without repentance nor is thereby any reason given of râpentance being required by Peter afore baptism Nor is there any proof in Master Cobbet why more should be required to baptism of the adult Jewes then of their unripe children onely he tels of their practice in New England that when any are received to fellowship with them though they being as transient members by vertue of communion of churches are admitted upon their former church-ingagement yet desirous to be fixed Members they require testimony of their repentance of their former church-sins and personal scandals therein committed not so of their children not sui juris nor capable of personal satisfaction so it was with them Acts 2. being to be incorporated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way But setting aside the question whether this course in New England be justifiable and by what rule they require more of the fixed member then of the transient the defilement being alike in both 1. It is not true that it was so with the Jewes and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jewes then an Evangelical church less perfect then that of the Apostles but openly opposite to Christ and the christian church Nor was that which those Jewes perplexed did propound that they might be of their church as a purer church but what Peter and the Apostles would advise them to do to free them from the guilt of crucifying Christ. Nor doth Peter at all as an Elder assign repentance to them for admission to outward Church-priviledges but as an Apostle preacheth to them repentance for remission of sins and easing their consciences which was an act of doctrine not of jurisdiction 2. If it had been so yet neither doth this prove that the Apostle required more of the aged Jewes to baptism then formerly nor that he did it because they were to be incoâporated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way nor that he did require more of the Fathers then the children to baptism nor is the argument infringed that if covenant-interest intitle to baptism of it self without repentance the Father to whom the promise is as well as the child yea in priority to the child who derives his title from the Fathers covenant-interest then it should much more intitle the Father to baptism without repentance Idem qua idem semper facit idem so that after so many shifts absurdities unproved dictates vain dreames of making the case of the Jewes like persons received into fellowship in N. E. and the overweening conceit of the purity of their church and exhibition of the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way there is nothing yet produced to invalidate the argument from Peters requiring repentance of the Jewes afore baptism against the connexion between covenant-interest and right to baptism Master Cobbet goes on thus nor must that needs follow that because it 's said they were added to the church that therefore they were not of the church before but after Peter spake those words v. 39. the promise is to you c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized as after that mentioned of their receiving the Word gladly and yet will our opposites conclude that therefore they were not of the church nor in the covenant before they were baptized but came into that estate by baptism If baptism were the form of the church or that which they so much urge wholly failed that a person must be first discipled and so in covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized Ans. Either I understand not the force of words or else it is a cleer argument Acts 2.41 And there were added in that day souls about three thousand v. 47. And the Lord added the saved daily to the church and these were of the Jewes therefore Jewes were not of the church before that day and that addition For what is addition to a company but a joyning or bringing one more to them then was before even as in arithmetick addition is putting to another member then was before reckoned And this argument seems so plain to me that I count the denial of it as the denial of a common notion That which Master Cobbet answers is to the argument framed thus they are not said to be added till after Peters speech v. 39. therefore they were not of the church before and I confess the argument so framed is not so cogent sith historians do not alwaies relate things in order as they were done Yet supposing Lukes relation orderly of which there is no cause to doubt sith the particles ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã then v. 41. shew it the argument is good after Peters words it is said then and that day were added therefore they were not before of the church Nor do I know any absurdity in it to say they were added by baptism to the church it being one means of addition to the church and though I say not that baptism is the form of the church but that there may be a church without baptism nor the onely way of adding to the church for the preaching of the Word is also a means of adding to it yet this I say that neither is a church regular nor the addition as it should be without baptism And though I say a person is to be discipled afore he be baptized yet he may be baptized afore he is in some sense in covenant and church-estate meaning in covenant by Gods promise to him and in church-estate that is so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in compleat fellowship of other ordinances with it Master Cobbet proceeds thus Nor is that cogent which is urged against the childrens right in the promise and unto baptism that they should be so priviledged when they came to be effectually called and to be turned from their sins as if this were quoad homines their onely rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof or at least the onely way of having such a visible interest in the visible churches courâ For besides that it was not so of old in applying of circumcision as Gods appointed seal of the parties visible covenant-estate and right even with us
also it is not the rule in foro Ecclesia for then none are by the church to be by rule admitted to baptism but such as are effectually called and then John which knew that the most of them which he baptized would be as chaffe in the floor he kept not rule in baptizing of them Or if calling be taken for external inviting in the Word preached and offer of Christ that I suppose will not be pleaded for then every hearer should be forthwith baptized albeit an Indian or Blackâmore but calling as taken in reference to baptizing unto remission of sins seemeth to be rather calling into visible covenant and church-estate unto which some whose was the promise intentionally yet were afar off from that estate actually at present but when called to it they were then to be baptized Ans. The objection answered here by Master Cobbet if this passage here relate to my Examen as it 's likely it doth was thus formed Exam. pag. 60 61 62. Exercit. sect 4. the promise Acts 2.39 is neither to fathers nor their children nor those afar off without calling therefore nor to infants who are not called by the Lord and this calling I conceive an effectual calling to the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ as the Apostle speaks 1 Cor. 1.9 Master Cobbet doting on his own frivolous exposition of the being of the promise in respect of external right and administration propounds the objection as if the objectour agreed with him therein and then the absurdities I confess would follow which Master Cobbet drawes from the objection as thus interpreted The promise is in respect of external right and administration to none but the effectually called that the onely rule to judg a persons visible right to baptism and the onely way of having such a right is effectual calling But Master Cobbet might have understood that I still disclaimed this that right to baptism is from interest in Gods promise or covenant and have asserted that is onely from the persons own profession of Christ and covenanting to be his Disciple and for the promise Acts 2.39 I understand it of Christ sent for remission of sins and thus it is most true that the promise is neither to father nor child uncalled what therefore Master Cobbet refutes is not owned by me yet his refutation I count not valid For that which he allegeth it was not so in circumcision therefore it must not be so in baptism proceeds on this mistake that the rule of circumcision is a rule about baptism And for that which he saith that John knew that the most of them which he baptized would be as chaffe in the floor I conceive not true nor doth it appear that John did admit to baptism those he knew were hypocrites and reprobates Pareus Comm. in Matth. 3.7 non ad baptismum indignos admisiâ and of all others me thinks a New England teacher should not alledge that which if it were true would condemn their strictness in admission of members into their churches excluding them whom they are not satisfied to be truly regenerate so far as they can discern For doubtless whom John baptized they may and ought admit to Church-membership And this plea is made by Master Norton Resp. ad Apollon c. 1. propos 1. for the New England strictness that John Baptist repelled hypocrites from baptism Now to the objection as I conceive it in the answer is insufficient Master Cobbet denies that the words as many as the Lord our God shall call do circumscribe to you and your children as well as all that are afar off Acts 2.39 But then he would have it to be meant of calling into visible covenant and Church-estate in which he would have infants included But the Scripture speaks of no such calling and both that conceit and Master Cobbets exposition conformable to it have been so fully refuted before that I shall add no more Onely whereas he saith that if calling were taken for external inviting in the Word preached and offer of Christ then every hearer should be baptized forthwith albeit an Indian or Blackamore I conceive it will not follow sith they that would have all outwardly called by the offer of Christ baptized it 's likely do mean it of such a calling as is with effect so as that the person called be brought to outward profession at least of the faith of Christ. Master Cobbet addes three considerations to prove that infants not capable of actual repentance were not in defect of that repentance excluded from the promise mentioned Acts 2.38 39. which I might grant understanding it of the promise of remission of sins before God and of elect infants and yet no proof thence for infant-baptism But because Master Cobbet takes the promise to be in respect of external right and administration and that from it there 's a title derived for infant-baptism I shall consider what he saies 1. Such a supposed exclusion of their babes had been to lay an occasion and addition of more cumbers and trouble to the darkened disquieted spirits of his hearers then to clear and ease them supposing as is undeniably evident that their wish against their poor children pressed them sore as well as other guilt It was all along thitherto a received truth that God was a God to their seed externally by vertue of Abrahams covenant they were his adopted children Ezek. 16.21 and the churches children which she baâe to the Lord v. 20. see Deut. 29.29 and it was evident by Gods own appointment of circumcision to be the initiatory seal not to a blanck but to his covenant of being a God to them whilest babes and before circumcised in heart so as actually to repent Deut. 30.6 this their babes had external right unto whilest these their parents were convinced or unwrought upon remaining uncut off by censures from the church as of old Ezek. 16.20 21. is mentioned of those Idolaters Now if not so when their Parents are wrought upon by Peters Sermon as the parents were thus far losers by Christ and his Gospel and the efficacy thereof losing that precious parental priviledge which they had before this of their childrens federal inâerest and priviledge of Abrahams covenant so also their children are losers too by their Parents coming so far on to Christ coming now thus to be excluded their former Covenant-right and neither Parents nor children to have any Covenant-right and priviledge in lieu hereof How such doctrine might well stumble and trouble such Parents let any sober and judicious mind judg to be sure they have a load of guilt and given a deadly wound unto their poor Babes by that curse of theirs now if they are as Pagans strangers from the covenant then there is no hope in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and wayes of hope and life Ephes. 2.11 12 13. Ans This long tale hath more of childish affection then manly reason setting aside the new language of initiory seal set to a
blanck childrens federal interest precious parental priviledge cavenant right and such like gibberish according to the Paedobaptists supositions about the imagined covenant to father and child right of infants to the first seal thereby and this a great priviledge without which no revealed grounds ordinary of hope and life this is the substance of the tale that if Peter had told them their infants were not to be baptized who before were circumcised he had added more grief to the spirits of the Jewes pressed with the sense of their wish against their children Matth. 27.25 and therefore he is to be conceived Acts 2.39 to have told them of their infants right to baptism Now surely in my apprehension if Peter had told them such a tale as Master Cobbet imagins he did even then when so great perplexity of spirit was upon them by reason of the horrid sin of crucifying Christ and their imprecation on them and their children they being then indisposed to laughter must in all likelyhood have been much moved either with grief or anger against such a Doctor as would mock them with such a receipt as was no more to their disease then the promise of a feather to weare is to revive a man almost dead with the pain of the collick For what comfort could this be to them concerning themselves who expected the heaviest wrath due to them for their sin or concerning their children on whom they wished a most heavy curse to be told of a priviledge for them and their children which as it was to them before was painfull in the use so was it a heavy yoke in the obligation to be continued in an other rite which of it self was but washing with cold water and in the fruit of it before God yielded no benefit without faith and repentance and in the church yielded at best but a title of church-membership by which they had no benefit but what they might have without it noâ would stand them in any stead for church-communion without their actual believing It is clear Acts 2.39 is an encouragement to the duties and expectation of the good mentioned v. 38. Now what encouragement is it to repent to be told that the promise was already to them in external right and administration and to their infants though not as yet penitent or believers such a motive might rather have tended to keep them in impenitency being in so good case already in the estate they were in And for baptism into the Name of Christ such a motive tended rather to disswade them from it as might fill their mindes with high conceits of their and their childrens covenant-right even by vertue of their being in the Jewish church without faith in Christ or joyning to the christian church And for the good of remission of sins before God which they needed what assurance could they have of it by telling them of their and their childrens having the promise already as Jews without personal faith and repentance in external right and administration before men As for the falsity of the speech as expounded by Master Cobbet it is shewed before what he would burden his opposites with as if denyeng infant-baptism they counted them as Pagans strangers from the Covenant without hope in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life Ephes. 2.11 12.13 is a meer Calumny For setting aside their talk of initiatory seal and external covenant which they cannot say assure life to the infants of believers without election we assure as much by the covenant of grace justification by Christs bloud and sanctification by his Spirit which is effectual calling and they can in trueth assure no more nor any other way though to uphold their credit and to win the affections of credulous parents they befool them with idle talk of a covenant which the Scripture never mentions and of sealing that covenant by baptism which the Scripture is silent of The texts Ezek. 16.21 20. Deut 30.6 will be examined afterwards Why he bids see Deut. 29.29 I know not unless it be that we may discern his weakness in alledging the Scriptures impertinently sith it cannot be meant of infants to whom the revealed things do not belong that they may heare them and do them in infancy The second consideration is in brief this that the Apostles who as yet preached not for the abolishing of Mosaical rites but were indulgent to the Jewes Acts 21.20 22 23 24. would not give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that covenant of Abraham it self whereof circumcision was a visible seal as the places quoted in Gen. 17.11 13. and Acts 7.8 declare To which I answer By my exposition there is no exclusion of babes from the promise Acts 2.39 though it be restrained to those who are effectually called sith babes may be said to be effectually called by the Spirit of God according to election nor doth my exposition exclude the Jewes infants from the Covenant Gen. 17.7 or circumcision or in the least manner meddle with that point Nor do I think the promise Gen. 17.7 to be the same with that Acts 2.39 If it were yet how it may be understood otherwise then Master Cobbet conceives is shewed above The third consideration setting aside his phraseology is this that if Peter should intend to exclude infants from baptism it were to be cross to Pauls doctrine Rom. 15.8 who makes it Christs end not to evacuate undermine or abolish by his coming the promises indefinitely made to the fathers whether in Gen. 17.7 or Deut. 30.6 or the like or respecting parents or children but to confirm the same Ibid. But how this consequence is made good I cannot conceive but do deny it and expect a proof of it ad Graecas Calendas Master Cobbet concludes the chapter with an answer to the objection that if this were granted of those Jewish children what is this to our childrens federal interest in the daies of the Gospel and he answers 1. That it proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension this tenent of the children of visible members of the church are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace is of divine authority and iâ no humane invention Ans. 1. In the objection the concession was that those Jewish children were never before denyed to be visibly in Abrahams covenant which Master Cobbet alters thus are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace now it may be granted those Jewish children were visibly in Abrahams covenant and yet denyed that they are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the covenants being not the same every way and it being certain as in the case of Saul and others a person may be visibly interessed in the covenant of Abraham and yet not in the covenant of grace 2. Infants visible interest in the covenant of Abraham I know no otherwise then by circumcision and this sure the Apostles taught
Burgersdicius Inst. log l. 2. c. 5. Keck Syst. Log. l. 1. part 2. c. 3. and others Scheibler Top. c. 29. n. 36. bounds it with sundry cautions And indeed we must cashier many received divisions if that rule hold as e. g. in morality of good into honest pleasant and profitable in divinity of the law into moral ceremonial and judicial of the divine persons into the Father Son and holy Ghost of the Bookes of the Old Testament into Moses the Prophets and the Psalmes and so blame Christ himself What Master Sidenham infers so that it is most clear the words must be understood as they are translated is not denyed by me and yet the words Acts 2.39 as many as the Lord our God shall call limit the first part of the v. Nor do I deny the promise is to you Jewes and your children at present to express the Apostles meaning in the sense I have given nor do I gainsay what he addes and to those afar off also and their children when God shall call them if he mean it of the calling the chileren as well as the parents though withall it is to be noted that in the text there is no mention of the children of those afar off But what he saith further else that is if the promise be not to the children of those afar off when God shall call the parents calling can with no sense be applyed to any tittle of the former part of the verse without you make it monstrous and unlike it self is either false or unintelligible by me For though the promise should not be to the children of those afar off when God called the parents yet this is in my apprehension good sense The promise is to you being called and to your children being called nor is any monstrosity or unlikeness to it self more in this sense then if the term called were applyed only to the latter part But there would be non-sense if the distribution were reduced to dichotomie as Master Sidenham would have it and the proposition would be false that the promise which Master Sidenham makes to be of remission of sins Christ and his Spirit justification sanctification and all graces is to them or their children without calling or though God should not call them There is some more of the like stuff in that which followes 2. It 's against another rule about distribution which is that partes divisionis ambulent equali passu that the parts of a distribution should be equally set together Now here will be a mighty inequality as to the communication of the promise if the words should be taken in their sense the Jewes will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles if children be not equally added to both the Jewes had the promise made to them and their children at present these afar off shall onely have the promise to themselves but not their children Ans. It is one of the vexations that befals men that write bookes that they are necessitated to answer such silly scriblings But so we must do or else the world will be befooled with that which is most vain The objection to which this Author answers is that the latter clause as many as the Lord shall call is a limitation of the verse and no more are under the promise and so children if God shall call them shall also enjoy the promise now that which he contends for is that children is to be added equally to both parts of the v. which was not in question but shewes not the promise to be to the children if God call them not which is the thing in question And as he shootes besides the mark proving what was not to be proved so his argument is nothing to that he takes on him to prove He sets down a rule in Logick which I find in Scheibler âop c. 29. n. 39. with this explication hoc est sumantur ex eodem genere But in this sense it seemes this Author meant it that the thing divided be communicated equally to the parts of the division it is not true For then the division of being into substance and accident God and the Creature with many more were not right divisions But were his rule right as he means it as it is not yet it is nothing to his purpose He would prove if children be not equally added to both parts of the v. Acts 2.39 then the Jewes will have a greater priviledge then the Gentiles which might be granted without absurdity for there would be a mighty inequality as to the communication of the promise which is against the rule of Logick he mentions as if the promise or the communication of the promise were a whole divided into parts and one part were the Jewes and their children and the other were the Gentiles and their children which were ridiculous nor do I know any other way he can understand his arguing from this Logick rule but that it will appear alike frivolous But the Reader I doubt will think I insist too much in answering such trifles I go on therefore 3. Saith he consider how comes this word your children to be kept in for what end and use if it were not to shew some spiritual priviledge they have with their parents when God calls or converts the parents what stands it for but a stone of offence to consciencious hearts Ans. 1. he asserts in this passage that your children is kept in to shew some spiritual priviledge they have with their parents when God calls or converts the parent but a little before he observed a change in the tense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praeseuti of the present application of the promise and supposeth under the call of God already here your children is to shew a speciall priviledge when God calls or converts the parent which intimates that he had not then called or converted the parent and therefore the one passage crosseth the other 2. He had said before that as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children and yet here he refers it in a necessary sense as he conceives to the parent 3. If the special priviledge to the children doth suppose the parents call why not also the childrens call 4. Yea the special priviledge in the Text to the father and child is the promise and that Master Sidenham makes to be of justification sanctification and all graces and can he imagine this promise to be to a child barely on the parents call without his own personal calling by God I think he durst not assert it If he did I am sure it is false as being contrary to Rom. 8.30 and therefore of necessity to make his own exposition good we must limit the former part of the verse in what is said both of parent and child by the words as many as the Lord our God shall call As
were yet under Gods Gospel call Answ. There 's neither tautology nor mystery in limiting the promise to the called of the Jew parents and children nor doth any thing make it seem strange but ignorance Tautology is not sith the Propositions are three distinct ones in words and sense it is not the same to say the promise is to you called the promise is to your children called the promise is to all that are afar off called you your children all that are afar off being different tearms Mystery is no more if it be added to the former part of the verse then to the latter The calling in the latter part of the verse can be understood of no other than effectual calling whether inward onely or both inward and outward for to none other of the Gentiles is the promise of remission of sins And for the same reason the limitation is necessary to be added to the former part of the verse nor can any good reason be given why the promise should be to the Jews and their children without calling by God and not to those afar off without it The Jews were then under call but were not then called nor doth Mr. Sidenham say they were and therefore Peter might aptly enough say to them The promise is to âs many of you as the Lord our God shall call The manner of expression is usual to put after a distribution of persons the limitation in common There is the like Acts 3.24 where as many as have spoken limits the Prophets from Samuel and those that follow after Had Mr. Sidenham understanding in him of these things he had not charged my exposition with making the Holy Ghost faulter in common expression of his mind Such censures ill become such a smattering scribler But who so bold as blinde bayard It follows Lastly saith he the word children may and must he understood of little ones infants not of adult and grown persons for these reasons Answ. Boldly said like a young hotspur Belike then when persons are ten twelve or more years old they cease to be their parents children and seed But I am willing to hear reason 1. saith he the word here ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã properly signifies an off-spring any thing brought forth though it be but of a day of a moment old Thus when a woman is said to be in pain and to bring forth this word is used John 16.21 Luke 1.31 Matth. 1.16 Luke 1.57 Answ. How heedlesly did this Authour scribble when he said this word which can be no other then ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is used John 16.21 Luke 1.31 Matth. 1 26. Luke 1.57 when it is used in none of those places though the verb whence it comes is used in them But were it used there yet the reason is frivolous ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifies a thing brought forth ergo ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã children Acts 2.39 may not must not be understood of adult and grown persons He might as well have said it must be understood but of those that are in this moment brought forth not of an infant of a day old and that the person brought forth is only the mothers ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or child because she only brought him forth not the father I did think till I met with this new Master that the Holy Ghost spake properly when he called persons grown to ripe age their fathers ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or children Ephes. 6.1 Col. 3.21 c. 2. Saith he It s an indefinite word and therefore may not be restrained to grown children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase Answ. Mr. Sidenham alters the conclusion he undertook to prove and concludes that which he findes not denied His reason is as well against his own conclusion It s an indefinite word and therefore may not be restrained to infant-children except God had exprest it in a peculiar phrase And indeed the reason is good only thus It s an indefinite word therefore it s to be restrained as the subject matter directs But Mr. Sidenham shifts as it may serve his turn His conclusion set down at first excluded adult children because he knew the promise had not then been to them without calling and so his project of drawing thence a priviledge for infants intituling them to baptisme had failed but here his proof coming short he alters the conclusion into that which might be granted him without detriment to the cause 3. Saith he It must needs be especially meant of little ones because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years Now when we distinguish between men and children we suppose the one adult the other under age and not grown up and it is contrary to all ways of expression to think otherwise Answ. Belike then we must think that where it is said Matth. 10.21 the fathers shall deliver the children to death and the children shall rise up against the parents and Luke 1.17 to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children it must be especially meant of little ones because they are distinguished from themselves who were men of years and to think otherwise if the Dr. of New-Castle say true is contrary to all ways of expression which you may imagine he knew 4. Saith he It cannot be rationally conjectured otherwise because the Apostle doth join them with their parents in the same promise and not leave them to stand by themselves as grown persons must Answ. Belike then if any understand the promises to Abraham and his seed to David and his seed of any other then infants it is not rationally conjectured I have done with this Writer about this Text of which he vainly talks as he doth in the rest so that all things weighed this text of Scripture if there were no more holds forth not to be seen the sameness of the promise to believers of the Gospel both Jew and Gentile and their children as ever it was to Abraham and his natural seed SECT XXV Mr. Marshal's Reply to my Examen about his first Conclusion is reviewed and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt and that Gentile self justiciaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham's seed nor Gal. 4.29 proves it and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right I Now reassume the Review of Mr. Ms. Reply to my Examen of his Sermon Next saith he come we to examine the truth of the Antecedent which I manifested in those five Conclusions opened in my Sermon But I supposed he had intended to prove by his five Conclusions not onely his Antecedent but also his Consequence If I apprehend him rightly there are none of his five Conclusions but the two first that are for proving of the Antecedent But let 's view what he writes The first whereof is this That the covenant of grace for substance hath always been one and the same both to Jews and Gentiles The first Conclusion you grant and therefore
there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it were it not that some of your Exceptions do almost recall your grant If it be in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose Answer It is true I granted this Conclusion understanding it according to the Explication in his Sermon pag. 9 10. in these words That the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall and that blessed promise concerning the seed of the woman often renewed and the Patriarchs faith therein and salvation thereby plentifully recorded in Scripture But the first time that ever it was revealed under the express name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the Father of the Faithfull and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies and families the one called the Kingdom City Houshold of God to which all who own the way of life were to joyn themselves and thâse were called the children of God the sons of Abraham the children of the Kingdom all the rest of the world the Kingdom of the Devil the seed of the Serpent strangers from the covenant of grace without God in the world c. The substance of this covenant of grace on Gods part was to be Abraham's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life Gen. 17.1 c. Gal. 3.15 Rom. 4.3 John 8.56 On Abraham's part the substance of the covenant was to believe the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Gal. 3.16 Gen. 17.1 18.19 Gal. 3.17 19. In which passage I did conceive that Mr. M. meant by the substance of the covenant of grace the promise as it is purely evangelical which I conceived to be the same with the new covenant mentioned Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. 10.16 17. And this I was sure was not made with all Abrahams natural posterity much less with any believing Gentiles natural posterity as such but onely so many of either as are elect and believe as Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.29 is determined and so none of a believing Gentiles children are in this covenant but they that are believers or elected to faith in Christ. But then this would not serve Mr. Ms. turn And therefore notwithstanding those words in his Sermon yet in his Defence pag. 90. he saith The covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church-privileges but in what sense he means it contains them he declares not That which is contained in a covenant is either the promise or the condition The seal writing writer pen and such like adjuncts are never called the covenant nor contained in it though they be instrumental to hold forth the covenant Now where any promise is of outward ordinances and Church-privileges or how they should be a condition of the promises I understand not He distinguisheth pag 106. of the covenant of grace thus The covenant of grace is sometimes taken strictly sometimes largely as it is considered strictly it is a covenant in which the spiritual benefits of justifi-fication regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly as the covenant of grace is taken largely it comprehends all evangelical administrations which do wholly depend upon the free and gracious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsel of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in types shadows and other legal ordinances this covenant of administration God said Zachary 11.10 he did break with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration we live under where also he rejected the Jews or broke them off from being his people in covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branch and broken off as your self pag. 65. do with Beza rightly express it But herein Mr. M. confounds what in his Sermon he distinguished the covenant of grace and the administration of it He saith The covenant of grace largely taken comprehends all evangelical administrations and saith This administration is fulfilled By the evangelical administrations he means the old legal ordinances afore Christs death and the administration we live under which is baptism and the Lords Supper pag. 120. he saith Our Divines own the outward administration of the covenant under the notion of foedus externum the outward covenant Now if there be sense in these passages I must needs charge my self with dulness who cannot discern it Is it sense to call that a covenant without a Trope which is neither a promise nor a condition of a covenant to say that the covenant contains or comprehends evangelical administrations and yet to call it the administration it self to say this administration was administred and not something by the administration administred But let us considee what others make of this distinction of covenant strictly and largely taken or which is all one the inward and outward covenant I have met with none that speaks more distinctly than Mr. Anthony Burges in his Book entituled Spiritual Refining Sect. 8. Serm. 64. pag. 393. who was one of the Assembly The external covenant is that whereby in an outward visible manner God doth own a people add they externally profess their owning of him but yet in their hearts and souls they do not stedfastly cleave unto God and faithfully keep this covenant in the conditions thereof The internal or inward covenant is that whereby God doth in a spiritual powerfull manner take a people to him working in their hearts all those gifts and graces promised in the covenant as regeneration remission of sins adoption and the like And in this sense onely the truly godly are in the covenant and they are onely Gods people and he their God This distinction of a covenant into outward and inward is not a distinction of a genus into its species so much as a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it In this passage there is want of clearness as well as in M. Marshals He tels us negatively that it is not a distinction of a genus into its species yet with some mincing of the matter so much as if it might be the distinction of a genus into its species though not so much which is an expression of a man who would say somewhat but cannot well tell what to say But if it be not a distinction of a genus into its species what distinction is
is in no part true not the former for Ishmael was never under the Covenant whether it be meant of the spiritual promises or temporal unless Mr. Sidenham means by bâiâng under the Covenant being circumcised which is all one with having the seal and then he useth an inept tautology in his speech without good sense Nor is the later true of females and males under eight days old I grant that both Abrâhams natural and spiritual children were circumcised which Mr. Sidenham means when in the Paedobaptists gibberish he saith The promise took in both relations as to outward administration but Rom. 3.1 2 3 4. speakâââââing of the spiritual childe of Abraham but the natural And for what Mr. Sidenham saith And if men truly state things you may argue as much against Abraham 's natural seed from enjoying these privileges as believers natural seed now and with as much evidence of truth I know not what he means by truly stating things the privileges mentioned Rom. 4.1 2 3 4. are Circumcision and the commission of the oracles of God to them and this later is reckoned as the Jews advantage and though it be true that we have the benefit of the oracles of God yet it is not true of our children in infancy nor of any of us or our children that to them were the oracles of God committed as to the Jews And for Circumcision it is true we may argue as much against Abrahams natural seed from enjoying it as believers natural seed now and with as much evidence of truth since Christ is come Circumcision the shadow is to cease both to Jews and Gentiles and me thinks Mr. Sidenhams arguing should be the same with ours if he were a Christian as I doubt not he was and not a Jew But that which Mr. Sidenham would have is that a believers natural childe should be Abrahams seed and this is the true stating of things which perhaps he means But afore I state things after Mr. Sidenhams minde I must see some proof as yet I see no one proof to make good any of his inconsiderate considerations He takes upon him to weigh the Scriptures brought by his opposites to prove that they onely are Abrahams seed meant in the Covenant as it was Evangelical Gen 17.7 to be true believers or elect persons The first is Rom. 9.6 7 8. in the setting down of the occasion of which words he saith Here Rom. 9.4 5. is a catalogue of high privileges which belonged to the Jews which they acre to be cut off from which lây on Paul ' s heart and was like to sink him But this is a frivolous conceit for the privileges there reckoned are all or most of them of things already past such as they could not be deprived of for that which is already done cannot no not by God himself be not done for it would imply a contradiction so those that were Israelites whose were the fathers who had the giving of the Law of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came could not be cut off from these privileges which were things past yea to imagine that the Jews should be deprived of those privileges is to overthrow the faith of the Christians who believe that Christ came of the fathers of the Israelites according to the flesh of which the Jews could not be deprived but by making it false And for the rest of the privileges though our Translators reade to whom pertains the adopâion and the glory not as Mr. Sidenham the adoption of glory yet the Greek being ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which leaves out the Verb to be supplied it is clear that it should be read whose were the adoption and glory and the Covenants and the giving the Law and the service and the promises and v. 5. whose were the fathers as well as it is read from whom Christ came though the Verb be not expressed sith otherwise the speech were not true For to the present Israelites did not pertain the adoption as if they then living were adopted or to be adopted children of God for the Apostle bemoans their rejection and cutting off And the glory being meant of the Ark 1 Sam. 4.21 or the cloud that covered it Ezek. 10.4 long before lost and the Covenants meant of the two Tables of the Law being lost and the giving the Law to wit the judicial Laws being an act cannot be expounded but of the time past and so the service to wit the ceremonial worship now Christ was come was no privilege to the present Jews but a heavy yoke yet it was a great privilege to their ancestours and the Verb is to be read in the Praeter-tense and in like manner the promises were the Israelites that is they had them first given to them and had the benefit of them and accordingly it is to be expounded thus whose that is to which Israelites were the promises fiâst made and they injoyed the benefit of them The thing then that afflicted Paul was not that the present Jews were to be cut off from those privileges but that the people who had formerly so great tokens of Gods peculiar respect to them should not be broken off from the Olive-tree rejected from being Gods people and hardned in unbelief Mr. Sidenham thinks this Text a weapon whose edgâ is turned against these that count it their own 1. Saith he The Apostle is sadly troubled for his kinsmen after the flesh for their rejection his reason is because of the Covenant and the promises made to them because they were the natural seed of Abraham which holds forth that the promises and privileges of the Covenant were indefinitely to all the Israelites Answer It is true the Apostle was sadly troubled for the Jews rejection but rhe reason given is such as is scarce competent to a sober minde For the reason as he makes it must either refer to his trouble or their rejection If it refer to Pauls trouble the sense is that Paul was troubled because of the Covenant c. But this should be a matter of rejoycing to him not of trouble unless he were troubled that God brake his Covenant with them because they were the natural seed of Abraham but sure God never brake his Covenant with them for that reason nor is it to be imputed to God without imputing unfaithfulness to him which were blasphemy to affirm If it be referred to the Jews rejection then the sense is they were rejected because of the Covenant c. But sure they were not rejected because of the Covenant made to them but because of their unbelief in not being stedfast in the Covenant Rom. 11.20 There 's the like wit in the illation For 1. how were the promises made indefinitely and yet to all the Israelites all is not an indefinite note but an universal 2. What is the meaning of that expression the privileges of the Covenant were made to all The making of privileges is somewhat an uncouth phrase 3. What were the promises
he take the promise to be made to Christ the seed as the Head of a visible Church then still it speaks for us Answer This is doughty disputing likely to turn the edg of our weapons against our selves when the Antagonist must yield him what he would have and me thinks he should have brought some Expositour or some argument for him and not so pitifully beg what he should prove To the contrary I urge that by Christ Gal. 3.16 is meant either Christ personal or Christ mystical or both and not as the Head of a visible Church 1. That the promises said to be made to Abraham 's seed that is Christ are of the blessing of Abraham which is righteousness and the spirit Gal. 3.8 9 14. the inheritance v. 18. life v. 21. not bare outward privileges But these things belong onely to Christ and his mystical body not his meer visible Church Ergo they are not the seed there meant 2. From the condition or means by which the promise is made good and that is faith v. 14 22. But the meer visible Church may be without faith therefore the promise is not made to it 3. By the express determination of the Apostle v. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham vers 29. And if ye be Christs that is by faith v. 26 27. then are ye Abraham 's seed and heirs according to the promise which a man would think were enough to silence thâse that make the promises to belong to unbelievers as Abrahams seed 4. The current Protestant interpreters of note such as Beza Piscator Perkins c. go this way But Mr. Sidenham thinks to evince his purpose from v. 14. where the blessing of Abraham is said to come on the Gentiles through Christ and this blessing of Abraham was not personal but to him and his seed this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed For it cannot be called Abraham s blessing except it come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abraham 's Covenant now this was the absolute form of Abraham 's blessing I will be a God of thâe and thy seed and this very blessing is come on the Gentiles through Christ as it came on Abraham and therefore it must be to believing Gântiles and their seed else it will neither âe Abraham 's blâssing in the form nor faâness of it Abraham 's blessing will descend on the Gentiles clipâ half off not like it self and it must needs be a very uncouth saying to all judicious ears to say that Abraham 's blessing is come on the Gentiles by Christ as it was on the Jews by Abraham and to exclude half the subjects at once from any right to it for so you must if you cast out the seed of Gentile believers To which I answered that had not the Assembly at Westminster Confession of Faith chap. 28. art 4. cited Gal. 3.9 14. with Gen. 17.7 9. to prove infant-baptism of a believing parent I should not have transcribed so much of this arguing The blessing of Abraham must come on the Gentiles saith he according to the substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Ergo on Gentile believers and their seed Now what is the blessing of Abraham and what the substantial terms of the Covenant and what seed of Abraham did it come on and how 1. The blessing is plainly expressed v. 8.9 to be justification v. 14. to be the receiving the promise of the spirit The same Apostle Rom. 4 6 9. placeth the blessedness of Abraham in the imputation of righteousness through faith Beza Annot. in Gal. 3.14 Et spiritus nomine benedictionem aeternae spiritualis vitae intelligo Perkins Comment on Gal. 3.14 That the blessing of Abraham that is righteousness and life everlasting Piscat Schol. in Gal. 3.14 Ut benedictio illâ Abrahae promissa de qua supra v. 8. ad Gentes perveniret in Christo quatenus nimirum illae Christo inseruntur per fidem Diâson in Gal. 3.14 benedictio Abrahae id est justitia vita aeterna 2. The substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 are thus set down by Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 10. The substance of the Covenant on Gods part was to be Abraham 's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and of sanctification and of everlasting life On Abraham 's part the substance of the Covenant was to believe in the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Not one that I know that makes the blessing or the substance of the Covenant to be an initial seal visible Church-membership and such like meer Ecclesiastical privileges 3. The seed of Abraham to whom the blessing is promised is his spiritual seed and it onely Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.14 of Abraham namely promised to Abraham and to his spiritual posterity onely Trapp Comment on Gal. 3.14 v. 14. The promise of the spirit that is the spiritual promise made to Abraham and his spiritual posterity The Text it self âal 3.7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham 4. The means is through faith Gal. 3.14 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham vers 9. From which I infer that he that would conclude from hence that the blessing of Abraham comes upon the Gântiles fathers and infant-children and that this is according to the substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 must hold that all children of Gentile believers are elect and believers and that they are justified as Abraham was which Mr. M. and Mr. G. disclaim and indeed is manifestly false being contrary to Scripture and experience But Mr. Sidenham thinks to infer hence a meer Ecclesiastical privilege of right to an initial seal which is not at all meant Gal. 3.14 by the blessing of Abraham nor ever meant by the Covenant Gen. 17.7 nor would the promise be true if meant of it for many of Abrahams seed had no right to Circumcision or visible Church-membership Surely according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses all the posterity of Abraham by Ishmael the sons of Keturah Esaus were excluded and therefore the word of Gods promise so expounded had been false As for Mr. Sidenhams Reasons there 's no force in them The first may be retorted The first is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must not come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed also universally for it came not on Abraham and his natural seed universally nor is it true this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham for it is come on Abraham not simply as a believer but as a father of
believers not as father of men but it comes on no Gentile as father of believers but as Abrahams childe by faith The next also may be retorted if the blessing come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abraham 's Covenant then not in a meer outward Ecclesiastical privilege for that is no part of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 much less the substantial term of it it is neither Abraham 's blessing in the form nor fatness of it yea if it be meant by Abrahams blessing it is clipt half off not like it self it 's made an empty thing a meer outward privilege without salvation and so is in a manner reduced to nothing and half the seed of Abraham all the females and many more are excluded from any right to it For they had no right to the initial seal to wit Circumcision And to his question And to what end should the Apostle say The blessing of Abraham and not the Promise or Covenant is come to the Gentiles but that he intended it to the Gentile believers and their seed as formerly it came to Abraham and his seed I answer he saith The blessing of Abraham not the Promise or Covenant of Abraham because he in the Chapter before mentioned it and it was the proper effâct of Christs being made a curse for us though he after mention the Covenant and Promise according to which it is bestowed But that the use of that term of the blessing of Abraham should intimate an outward privilege of an initial seal to Gentile believers and their natural seed is such a reason aâ I am out of hope ever to understand Me thinks the use of that term vers 14. compared with v. 7 8 9. doth overthrow the fond conceit of the Assembly and Mr. Sidenham and is so plain a determination that the Promise of being God to Abraham 's seed is meant onely of true believers of the Gentiles and not their natural seed that if there were no more Texts it seems enough to me to overthrow their interpretation of Gen. 17.7 and the inference they make thence And in this I commend Mr. Sidenhaâs wit and the Assemblies that they let pass Gal. 3.7 without mentioning finding perhaps that it is expresly contrary to their conceit of Gentile believers children being reckoned for Abrahams seed I think it not amiss to add the word of Mr. Stalham Vindic. Redempt against Otes Gal. 3.13 14. Behold here a Gospel-blessing comes upon all those who are freed from the legal curse and if then the non-elected by this mans doctrine have the one he must yield the other also if freed from the curse they are blessed justified and saved ones this is worse than non-sense even impure blasphemy against the truth which shews all these to be connex to be freed from the curse to be blessed with Abrahams blessing to be justified and saved and therefore cannot be interpreted of a meer outward privilege belonging even to believers children who may be as Esau was non-elect There 's another Text which Mr. Sidenham takes upon him to turn the edg of it against Antipaedobaptists who produce it against Paedobaptists and he speaks thus But in Gaâ 3.29 the Apostle say they describes who are the seed if you be Christ 's then you are Abraham 's seed and heirs according to promise so that now no children born of believing parents can be the seed for they must be Christ 's according to that in v. 26. we are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus Answer This Text is clear not to prove as Mr. Sidenham represents ouâ conclusion that now no children born of believing parents can be the seed but that none of the Gentiles are Abrahams seed but those who are Christs by their âaith or election and adoption to be the children of God for such are all that are Christs and heirs according to the promise But the children of believing Gentiles are many of them not such nor any of them in that he is the childe of a believing Gentile therefore all the children born of believing parents are not Abrahams seed as Paedobaptists suppose To this Mr. Sidenham opposeth 1. That the Claromont Bible hath it if ye be one in Christ then are ye Abraham 's seed and that the Apostles endeavour is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile and to hold forth their unity in Christ where there is no distinction as formerly but now the Gentiles being one in Christ are Abraham 's seed as well as the natural and believing Jews Answer It is granted that the Apostle takes away the difference between Gentiles and Jews who are in Christ and asserts that now the believing Gentiles being one in Christ arc Abraham 's seed as well as the natural and beliâving Jews But this makes for our purpose for as none of the natural Iews but the elect and believing were Abrahams spiritual seed so it is concerning the Gentiles none of them either of their children are Abrahams seed in the sense in which the Gentiles may be termed Abrahams seed but the elect and believing 2. Saith Mr. Sidenham The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abraham 's seed as the subject of the outward privileges and administrations of ordinances but to shew that none are spiritually and really Abraham 's seed and heirs of promise but such as are Christ 's one in him with Abraham for if this should be the distinction of seed as the subject of outward ordinances it would be as much against professing believers as infants for there is a carnal profession as well as a fleshly generation the former more abominable Answer I confess it is not the Apostles intent to shew the distinction of Abraham 's seed as the subject of the outward Privileges and administration of Ordinances for neither doth he make there any distinction of Abrahams seed there being in that passage no seed of Abraham mentioned but such as are spiritual nor doth he mention Abrahams seed as the subject meaning the adequate subject of outward Ordinances and Privileges there being many that were not Abrahams spiritual seed who might be circumcised baptized admitted to the Pass-over and Lords Supper and at least in some of these many who were might not though v. 26 27. compared together shew who were wont then to be baptized to wit believers and such as at least in profession put on Christ. And I conceive Pauls intent was to shew that none are spiritually and really Abraham 's seed and heirs of promise but such as are Christ 's one in him with Abraham Now this manifestly proves the thing we would have that none of our children are Abrahams seed in the Gospel-sense according to which the promise Gen. 17.7 is to be understood but elect and true believers and so not in that Covenant and consequently not by virtue of interest in that Covenant baptizable as Paedobaptists would have it But I know not any who
made to infer salvation and Zaccheus in that he was the son of Abraham proved to be one that the son of man came to seek and save which can agree onely to elect persons therefore the term seed of Abraham equipollent to son of Abraham as Evangelically such notes onely elect persons or true believers Piscat Analys Luc. 19.9 Electio Dei patris significatur v. 9. his verbis eo quod ipse quoque filius Abrahae est ubi intelligitur non simpliciter filius secundum carnem sed filius secumdum promissionem Dei qua promiserat ipsum futurum patrem credentium schol filius Abrahae nempe filius secundum promissionem id est electus vide Rom. 9. v. 7. and 8. New Annot on Luke 19.9 Is the son of Abraham to be a son of Abraham is to be chosen freely Rom. 9.8 To walk in the steps and faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 12. And generally to do the good works of Abraham John 8.39 Whereby we moy be assured of Election to eternal life Rom. 8.29 30. 2 Pet. 1.10 Trap com in Luke 19.9 He also is a son of Abraham that is freely elected Rom. 9. A follower of Abrahams faith Rom. 4.12 And a doer of his works John 8.39 3. It is said by our Lord Christ John 8.39 If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham he granted them ver 37. To be Abrahams seed by nature but not the seed of Abraham according to the Covenant Evangelical because their practise was unlike Abrahams Whence I inferre they Onely Evangellically are Abrahams children or seed even of those who descended from Abraham by generation who are like unto Abraham in their Actions But such onely are true believers or elect persons therefore true believers or elect persons onely are Abrahams children or seed Evangelical Diodati Annot. on John 8.39 children namely true and lawfull imitators âf Abrahams faith Father of all believers wherein consists the true meaning of this name of children of Abraham Rom. 4.16 and 9.6 7. Gal. 3.7 4. With our Lord Christs words accord the words of Paul who doth plainly determine that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 That God would be the God of Abrahams seed as it was Eavngelical belongs are believers or elect persons and no other Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Is so plain to prove it that the very reading the words is enough to clear it to a heedfull reader For therein the Apostle doth shew how the promises Gen. 17.7 Are true of the Gentiles as well as the Jewes in that Abraham is considered therein as the father of believers v. 11. And the father of circumcision that is as Beza of the circumcised yet not a father to all of them nor to them onely but to those circumcised ones onely and with them to all other that believe or walk in the steps of that faith which our father of us believing Gentiles Abraham had being yet uncircumcised v. 11.12 Now if Abraham be considered in the promises as Evangelical onely as the Father of believers of either sort circumcised or uncircumcised then the seed of Abraham are onely believers or elect persons And to this purpose doth Master Dickson paraphrase the words thus Abraham received from God the sign of circumcision to seal the Covenant of grace or the righteousness of faith which âe had uncircumcised to that end that he might be father of uncircumcised believers and in like manner of circumcised to wit who are both sons of the flesh and sons of the faith of Abraham Therefore the righteousness of faith is common to the circumcised and uncircumcised believers or them that follow the steps of the faith of Abraham not yet circumcised But Abraham is said to be the father of believers in that he is the first eminent example of faith and of righteousness imputed by faith and by his example an Author to all that they may believe Beza in his note on Rom. 4.12 For as speaking of the uncircumcised he said not simply that Abraham was the father of them all but of them onely who should believe he also hath deservedly kept the same distinction in the Jewes because as I said before it is not simply the Apostles purpose to teach Abraham to be the father of both the uncircumcised and the circumcised but also especially by what reason he is the father of both which is his scope For to be a child of Abraham before God and to be justifyed by faith cohere Again v. 13. shewes the same For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law but through the righteousness of faith I shall use the words of the same Authors Dickson thus paraphraseth v. 13. He proves Abraham to be Father not but of believers onely uncircumcised alike and circumcised and together addes a third argument The promise made to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the land of Canaan in time and of the world and heaven in truth came not to him by the law or by the condition of works but happened to him by an absolute promise to him already justified by faith and having the righteousness of faith Therefore his sons are not they which are of the law seeking to wit righteousness by works but they onely who are by faith seeking righteousness by faith that is all and onely believers circumcised alike and uncircumcised to whom equally the common righteousness of faith and the inheritance is promised The argument is of force for if father Abraham be not the heir of the world nor have righteousness but by faith certainly none are his sons but believers who have righteousness by faith and by righteousness the inheritance Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.13 But in these words there is a continuation of the former conclusion the application of the example of Abraham neither to the circumcised neither to the uncircumcised otherwise not availing unless two things be shewed to wit that God made that Covenant not with Abraham alone but with his heirs also and that under the name of his posterity any who shall believe that covenant like Abraham are understood Therefore Paul conjoynes the promises of God made to Abraham as it were into one body and when he had taught all believers whether cicrumcised or uncircumcised to be Abrahams sons he verily deservedly calls Abraham the heir of the world by the term world understanding all Nations and therein following the Lords stâps For when the Lord had said to Abraham that he would be the God of him and his seed after he expounded what he understood by the term seed to wit all the nations of the earth when he said that it should be that in him he would vouchsafe them all his grace The next v. also confirms it v. 14. For if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void and the promise made of none effect
which Mr. Dickson thus paraphraseth if they which are of the Law or which seek righteousness by works were the sons of Abraham and heirs of life and partakers of righteousness then faith should be made void and the promise vain But this is absurd Therefore they which are of the law are not heirs but alone believers are sons of Abraham and heirs of life and righteousness The 16. v. doth yet more plainly express that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 As Evangelical is made are believers onely Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that onely which is of the law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all Upon which saith Mr. Dickson with that uery counsel God appointed that the inheritance should be of faith that it might agpear to be of grace or by grace Therefore onely and all believers uncircumcised and circumcised alike are heirs The inheritance is of faith and by grace by the Counsel of God that the promise might be sure to all the âeed not onely to that which is the seed of Abraham by the law of nature and hath faith also that is the circumcised Jewes believing but also to that seed which is not by the law of nature or the flesh but onely by the faith of Abraham that is the uncircumcised believing Gentiles Therefore unless suspending the promise of righteousness and the inheritance upon the condition of the law to be performed we would make it unsure and uncertain the whole seed of Abraham or all and onely believers circumcised and uncircumcised are heirs by faith with father Abraham who according to faith is father of all us believers of Jewes and Gentiles Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.16 Paul manifestly devides into two members that which in general he had said of the whole seed of Abraham that is believers both circumcised and uncircumcised Pisc. Sch. to all the seed that is of Abraham to wit all believers Diodati to all namely to the spiritual seed according to the faith of which God intended to speak in that excellent promise I will be thy God and of thy seed after the Gen. 17.7 Lastly the Apostle interprets the promise Gen. 17.5 That Abraham should be the father of many Nations thus that the Gentiles should be his seed by faith v. 17. as it is written I have made thee a father of many Nations on which Master Dickson By force of the divine promise promising that he should be the father of many Nations Abraham embraced for sons all believers to be ingrafted into his seed and so in vertue of the promise as it were begat or conceived believers to himself as sons promised The new Annot on Rom. 4.17 I have made thee a Father See Gen. 17.5 Not of those only that should issue from him according to the flesh but also of those among all nations that by faith should be adopted and received into his spiritual family 5. The texts also which are Gal. 3.7 16 â9 and 4 28. Are very pregnant to the same purpose that the seed of Abraham to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical is made are only true believers or elect persons The first of these places is that which is asserted in terms Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham where the speech is equipollent to an exclusive For having v. 2.5 told them they must have the spirit and be Abrahams children either by the works of the law or by faith and determined that they had not the spirit by the works of the law but by faith supposing that they who are children have received the spirit as it is v. 14. it plainly followes that they only are the children of Abraham which are of faith even as Protestant divines conclude from Gal. 2.16 that justification is by faith only because the disjunction being sufficient justifycation is either by faith or by works and works excluded it followes we are justified by faith onely And so Mr. Dickson conceives that the Apostles argument is Gal. 3.7 They onely who are of the faith or who seek to be justified by faith and not by works are the children of Abraham therefore the only reason of justification is by faith Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.7 yet you know that is to say this doctrine is clear and resolved upon amongst Christians that the true children of Abraham comprehended in the covenant which God made with him and his posterity are not the carnal Jewes which are borne of him or joined to him by circumcision and by professing of their ceremonies but all such as according to Abrahams example do renounce all confidence in their own proper works and put it wholly in Gods promises and grace in Christ as Abraham was made a father example and paragon of faith to all those to whom the covenant made with him was to appertain The like is the determination of Mr. Perkins that I may omit others who in his com on Gal. 3.7 Saith the promise and election of God makes properly children of Abraham and that the true mark of the child of Abraham is to be of the faith of Abraham and that profession of Abrahams faith and descent from Isaac are not sufficient to prove men children of Abraham without following of his faith The texts Gal 3.16 29. have been considered before and our inferences vindicated from Mr. Sidenhams evasions The other to wit Gal. 4.28 Speaks to the same purpose to which the fore alleaged texts do Now we Brethren as Isaâc was are children of the promise that is we of whom the Jerusalem which is above is mother that is as Beza Annot. adde v. 26. we who embraced Christ adde v. 27. he shewes the true sons of Abraham are born spiritually by the Gospel adde v. 28. are children of the promise that is that seed to which pertaineth that promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed out of all which it appears that as the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee was Evangelical it was made only to the elect of God and true believers and they only are Abrahams seed there meant 6. I shall next adde the consideration of that text Rom. 9.6 7 8. Whâre the Apostle speaks thus not as though the word of God hath taken none effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed I suppose it will not be denyed that this passage is an answer to an objection occasioned by the intimating of the rejection of the Jewes from being Gods people v.
of them For in the Evangelical sense to whom God promiseth to be God he promiseth to justifie them to regenerate them to raise them up to eternall life as appears by our Saviours own reasoning Luke 20.37 38. where he infers from Gods avouching himselfe to be the God of Abraham his living to God rising from the dead to eternal life by the Apostles inference Rom. 4.16 from thence that righteousness is by faith Rom. 9.7 8. determining them to be elect people of God to whom he hath promised to be God Heb. 8 10 c. But God doth not promise to every believers child to justifie regenerate and raise him to eternal life for if he did promise it he would perform it to say he makes a promise to any and to say they have not the efficacie of it is to make God a lyar whereas many children of believers are never justified regenerated nor shall be raised to eternall life He performs it to all true believers and elect persons and to none other therefore none others are meant there by Abrahams seed in the Evangelical sense 8 Lastly the words of John Baptist Matth 3.9 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism saying to them And think not so say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham do evince â that repenting and believing persons though raised by God of stones without naturall generation are the children of Abraham to whom the promise is made Gen. 17.7 2. That it was not their naturall descent from Abraham without repentance and Gospel faith which did entitle them to Gods favour or to his baptism and therefore it follows thence that the children of Abraham to whom the promise is Gen 17.7 are onely the elect or true believers 3. That to be the child of a believer is not a sufficient title to Gods favour or baptism To this purpose Paraeus Com. in Matth. 3.9 He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to fleshly birth but pertain only to believing spiritual posterity For they are not sons of Abraham who according to the flesh are of Abraham but who are according to the spirit Piscat Sch. in Matâh 3.9 His sentence is although ye come from Abraham according to the flesh yet ye are not therfore those sons of Abraham to whom pertains the promise of eternall life made to Abraham and his seed For this belongs to them who imitate Abrahams faith and piety Diodati Annot. on Matth. 3 9. And think not do not dally with your selves to think that because you are issued from Abraham according to the flesh you are in Gods favour and free from his judgement for with him the imitation of Abrahams faith and piety is the onâly thing which demonstrates and causeth to be the children of Abraham and not the corporall generation Rom 4.12 Now such children may be brought forth of all Nations yea and out of these stones Neither do you perswade your selves that by your perdition Gods people shall perish for Gods people shall always subsist in these spiritual children of Abraham towards whom Gods covenant and promises shall be verified This then is the constant Doctrine of the New Testament that the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall is made onely to the elect and true believers that they onely are Abrahams seed spirituall and so onely in the covenant of grace by Gods promise and therefore if it be true that they onely who are in covenant which Paedobaptists say when they say the Seal follows the Covenant are to be baptized not any one because he is the child of a believer but the elect and true believers are to be baptized and so their own argument for Infant-baptism overthroweth it SECT XXIX The Allegation of Rom. 9.6 7 8 Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall belongs are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes Answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch 6. TO my Allegation of Rom 9.6 7 8. in my Examen part 3. sect 4. Mr. Blake undertakes to give an answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. And first having belied me as borrowing from Stapleton the Jesuit and learning to a âair to follow him though to my remembrance I never read that passage in him which he allegeth nor made any use of his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans or any other of his works in that Book of mine he proceeds thus in his scoffing calumniating fashion like a Satyrist rather than a Disputant We have drunk up the Protestants poyson and Mr. T. his great care is to preserve his party by the Jesuits Antidoââ be is wholly beholding to them for the Receipt Which is Mr. Blakes manifest calumny as the quotations in my Examen part 3 sect 4. in which he might see that I received it from the most eminent Protestants and alleged but one Papist and he no Jesuit but one of the better note and since the quotations in the foregoing Section do fully prove and it were easie to produce treble the number if need were But I find it in vain to endeavour the satisâying of such eager and through prejudice selfe-blinding Antagonists as Mr. Blake is I could if I liked such Arts as Mr. Blake useth tell Mr Blake he borrows from the Jesuit Bellarmin who against Peter Martyr saying the promise Gen. 17.7 is not universall concerning the children of beleivers but hath place onely in the predestinate replies This is said without proof for the words of the Scripture are absolute nor is there any mention of predestination in that whole chapter But Mr Blake promiseth me square dealing in the examining my Argument and sets down my words at length and then in stead of answering it puts divers Quaere's to me yeelding first to me that the Text Gen. 17.7 was in that place Rom. 9.6 7 8 brought into question by the Apostle 1 saith he How Bain and Ameâ come to the name of Remonstrants I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-remonstrants Answer And so aâso did I and therefore called them the answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants not Remonstrants as Mr. Blake not heeding my words suggests as one not willing to omit any thing whether right or wrong which may render me odious or contemptible 2. saith he 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 of which Mr. T. should not be ignorant little lesse than vapouring of his examination of it in Oxford Apolog. page 131. he spake in another manner even in Mr. T. his own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other The sons of the flesh with
Apostle determines and proves and no where gainsays But saith Mr. Blake In the words immediatly before this objection he speaks of the Jewes as his kinsmen according to the flesh which were the naturall seed of Abraham and saith to them pertain the adoption the glory and the Covenants c. How then can his distinction be interpreted to throw them out of Covenant when in express terms he had affirmed that they were in covenant How can he deny that these are children v. 7 when he had affirmed that to them pertaineth the adoption v. 4. Answer If the Apostle had affirmed those Jewes his kinsmen after the flesh that they were in covenant Gen. 17.7 and adopted for whom he sorrowed so much v. 2. he had plaid the hypocrite expressing his sorrow for them as not included in the covenant who he knew were in it he had trifled in raising an objection from thence and answering it yea he had contradicted himself who v. 6. saith All are not Israel that are of Israel and v 7. that because they were the seed of Abraham they were not all children v. 8. that the children of the flesh are not the children of God opposing the children of the promise to the children of the flesh And it will concern Mr. Blake to reconcile the Apostle to himselfe if he should mean as Mr Blake expounds him Nor do I know how he could with any shew of truth affirm these men to be in covenant with God to be his children who did obstinately oppose Christ being ignorant of the righteousness of God and seeking to establish their own righteousness were not subject to the righteousness of God Rom. 10.3 but were broken off for unbelief Rom. 11.20 It is true it is said Whose or of whom are the adoption and the covenants But doth he say this of the Israelites then living whose case he bewailed I conceive not but of their ancestors For the speeches were not true of them that of them was Christ according to the flesh or theirs the giving of the Law yet I deny not it was their honour and priviledge in some sort that God vouchsafed these things to their ancestors and nation and it did affect Paul much that the people which were so much dignified by God should now be rejected But were it that of those persons it were said that to them pertained the covenants and the adoption yet were it not true which Mr. Bl. saith that Paul in express terms affirmed that they were in covenant or were children of God For if it be true that by the Covenants were meant the Tables of the Covenant as Beza conceives or the Covenants of Adoption in respect of outward legall priviledges which are onely there mentioned as proper to the Jewes the adoption and covenants might be said to pertain to them and they neither in covenant nor children of God Evangelically But of this Text I have before spoken Sect. 27 c. Mt Bl adds whâch 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 Son Hos. 11.1 It is not meet to take the childrens bread and cast it unto Doggs Mat. 15.26 where all that were noâ 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 appertain to them and they stiled the children of the covenant and yet are they out of covenant Are they children to whom the adoption pertains and yet no children When Mr. T. hath given any fair answer to these Quaere's especially the two last we shall conceive some probability of truth in his gloss on the Apostles words in the mean time we cannot but look upon it in full opposition and contradiction to that which the Apostle expressly delivers Answâ 1. Nonâ of all the passages call those brethren of Paul whose case he bewaileth verse 3. Children of God his Son Children Children of the Prophets and of the Covenant 2. The speeches being of a people mixt of good and bad and the speeches being indefinite may be true if meant of some onely of those people yea in the Apostles sense they cannot be true of all that were not Genâiles all to whom Christ was sent that they were the children of God For many are termed by the Prophet Isai. 57 3. the sons of the Sorceresse the seed of the adultresse and the whore by John Baptist Matth. 3.7 Generation of vipers by our Lord Christ Matth. â3 15. Children of hell 3. Sometimes the term of Children is meant as the term righteous is Luke 15.7 of one that is so in reputation though not in truth as the children of the Kingdom Mat. 8.12 must be meant of them that were so in reputation though not in truth For had hây been so in truth they should not be cast out into utter darkness 4. By the children of the covenant Acts 3.25 is not meant that they were then in the Evangelicall Covenant as made to thâm For at that time they had not repented but were exhorted thereto v. 19 But they are called the children of the Covenant because they were the posteriây of those Fathers with whom first the covenant was made as they are called children of the Prophets because thây were the posteriây of that people to whom the Prophets were first raised and sent as is shewed before Sect. â7 out of which there is a fair answer to Mr. Blakes Riddles without an Oedipus that first the Covenants and Adoption Rom. 9.4 are not said to pertain to those Israelites for whom Paul mourned v. 3. but to their ancestors 2. If they did yet not in Mr. Blakes sense but in the sense fore-given 3. That those Israelites for whom Paul mourned Rom. 9.3 are not stiled children of the covenant Acts 3.25 4 Nor though iâ be true of those for whom Paul mourned is it any thing to Mr. Blakes purpose but hath another meaning foregiven And thus there is a sweet harmony beâween my gloss and the Apostles expressions Mr. Bl. next gives his Analysis of the Apostles words in which he grants v. 7. a numerous company by Ishmael to be excluded who were Abrahams seed after the flesh which evinceth what I contend for that Gods promise Gen. â7 7 was not made in any sort to Ishmael though he were the child of a beleiver and circumcised therefore that covenant is not made to every believers naturall child nor was the reason of circumcising this or that person taken from the persons interest in the covenant for Ishmael was circumcised though not in covenant Then Mr. Bl. adds As then there was a distinction of seed so also now one member he had laid down before viz. Israelites according to the flesh rested in all those priviledges there reckoned up v. 4 5 these they pleaded the Apostle yelds them and Mr. T according to the
discovery of these times denies 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 Answer I should hardly have thought a sober minded man much less a man reputed an ancient grave Divine would so slightly have handled such a Scripture in which he saith is my triumphing argument but that I meet with this passage defective in what was to be done and made up of flirts falshoods impertinencies ãâ¦ã opposite to the Apostle It is defective ãâ¦ã main things first in applying the distinction of the Apostle to the ãâã of the objection by shewing how the word faâls noâ if âhe one sort of seed of Abraham be rejected 2. In not shewing any invalidity in my deduction of my Conclusion thence that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. â7 7 as Evangelical is made are onely the elect His ââirts are at me ãâã denying the Israelites according to the discovery of these times what the Apostle yeeldâ Falshoods that the Israelites according to the flesh pleaded all those priviledges reckoned up v 4 5. For they were so far from pleading it as a priviledge that Christ came of them according to the flesh that they abhorred and accursed him 2. That I deny the priviledges which the Apostle yeeldeth them Which also are meer impertinencâes to the solution of the objection and to the distinction of the Apostle who doth not at all in the expression af Children of the flesh mention those priviledges nor mentions Children of the flesh as importing an investiture into those priviledges as Mr. Bl. seems to have conceived but barely by that term notes their naturall descent from Abraham insomuch that Ishmael is meant as a Child of the flesh who was no way vested in those priviledges v. 4 5 In stead of telling whether the eternally chosen and beloved of God were the seed meant Gen. 17.7 and âo the word of God fâiled not he onely tels us In these the seed of Abraham may continue though the other he cast off which is impertinently and doubtfully exprest as if there were not a certainty but onely a possibility of the seed of Abraham continuing in the eternally beloved and chosen of God It is in like manner impertinent to the business to tell what God hath done in successive generations when the objection is of the inconsisteâcy with his doings and his promises concerning the present generation Lastly it is directly against the Apostle who opposeth the children of the promise to the cast off to say that he hath continued a God in covenant to them whom he hath cast off and continueth âo them the priviledges of his pepole though he was upon the rejecting of them And it is a strange exprâssion when there is speech of rejection opposite to eternall love and choice of God to say God is now upon the rejection of them which intimates a beginning of a rejection But Mr. Bl. thinks to satisfie all by the words of Gomarus which having set down at large he then saith In which we have these three things 1. Mr. T. his objection wholly solved 2. The Apostle reconciled to himself And 3. the doctrine of Covenant holinesse from the Apostle fully established which when Mr. T. hath well considered with that which was spoke before having the whole current of the Scripture against him he will have little list to make this one Scripture his asylum To which I answer first there are many things in the words of Gomarâs liable to exception as â that âe saith The Jewes great priviledges mentioned ãâ¦ã objected But the thing that was objected was not those priviledges but the word of God concerning Israel and Abrahamsââed ââed 2. That ãâ¦ã That thâse priviledges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes Which is not true in the sense he ãâ¦ã present unbelieâing ãâ¦ã ãâã attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes by vertue of their outward âall because salvation is revealed and offered to them under condition of obedience and that offer sealed with circumcision wherein 1. he saith the offer of salvation under condition of obedience was sealed with circumcision But I had thought the thing Pedobaptists would have sealed with circumcision had not been the offer of savation upon condition of obedience but the covenant of God Gen. 17 which is another thing than the offer of salvation which is by men indeed according to the covenant but it is not the covenant for that is Gods act and is presupposed to the other Besides there are some promises at least in the covenant absolute not upon condition as the promise of regeneration in respect of which the covenant cannot be conditional and therefore the offer and the covenant are not to be confounded nor do I think Pedobaptists will like this that that offer was sealed with circumcision Besides there was no offer made to the Jewes of salvation under condition of obedience An offer is made by preâching circumcision was on the eighth day was there any that preâched at circumcision salvation under the condition of obedience to the circumcised and then circumcised the child to seal that offâr Nor did the Iewes use circumcision to seal the offâr of sâlvation under condition of obedience to Christ but to bind them to keep the Law of Moses in expectation of righteousness as appears from Acts 15.1.5.9 10. Gal. 5.3 Rom. 2 25 c. 2. Nor do I see any truth in that which he saith That those priviledges are attributed by the Apostle to the unbelieving Jewes by vertue of their outward call because salvation is âââealed and offered to them under condition of obedience and that offer sealed with circumcision For neither do Church-priviledges belong to persons barely by reâson of an outward call which is but an offer of salvation no man is accounted a Church-member having right to the seal as they term it because salvation is offered without some consent nor did those priviledges in any sort accrue to the Iewes upon an outward call by which salvation was offered to them upon condition of obedience the proceeding of Christ from them their having Abraham Isaac Jacob for their fathers their having the Law given them c. were not upon such an outward call but Gods respect to them Deut 7.6.4 It is not true that from thence all Israelites are promiscuously called children of the Covenant as Acts 3.25 For it is true onely of them that were after the Prophets as well as the covenant sith they are called children of the Prophets as well as of the covenant and neither Title is given to them because of the outward call alleaged but because they were the posterity of those to whom the Prophets
good what in covenant he had said He no where sayes that they are not intituled to priviledges of ordinances and thereby interessed in the prerogatives of Gods visible people What Paul Rom. 9.4 5. so largely yelds them Iohn Baptist doth not deny them which also now they had in visible possession Answer Neither Iohn Baptist nor Christ nor Paul yâilded them either to be in the covenant with Abraham Mr. Blakes own words notwithstanding this plea holds c. do plainly imply that Gods covenant did not hold with them and that by them God should not make good what in covenant âe had said or to be Gods visible people or to have right to the priviledge of baptism but the contrary is declared by them What Mr. Blake concludes the Chapter with âs either but a dictate that priviledg of ordinance meaning of Baptism is a Birth-inheritance without either proof or shew of proof from Prov. 19.14 Rom. 3.1 so that I shall trouble the reader with no more of the fopperies of this chapter onely I desire the reader to observe that whereas usually Paedobaptists grant that by birth a grown man is not intituled to the initial Seal without his own profession Mr. Blake denies that Iohn saith the viperous Pharisees and Sadduces and unbelieving Jewes are not inâituled to priviledges of ordinances and thereby interessed in the prerogatives of Gods visible people But Mr. Sidenham in his Exercit. ch 6. takes upon him to refell the plea from Matth. 3.8 9. gathering that the pretence of being Abrahams children could not give them a right to baptisme and if John denied Abrahams naturall seed on that account much more would he the adopted children But herein I conceive he doth not rightly set down his adversaries collection For the adopted children of Abraham I conceive are no other than beleivers and surely Mr Sidenhams adversaries do not imagine that John denied thâm baptism I for my part remember not my allegation of this Text afore the writing of this Book But I find Mr. William Kay in his Baptism without Bason thus averring 1. That Matth. 3.8 9. is directly against Infant-baptism in that none but such as have faith and repentance must think to be baptized 2. That the pretence or consequence from circumcision and being Abrahams naturall children to prove their title to Baptism I add to the Covenant Evangelicall Gen. 17.7 is also condemned in that he allows them not to think within themselves We have Abraham to our Father which is not meant simply as if they might not in any sort think Abraham to be their Father for Christ acknowledgeth it John 8 37. and they might lawfully think that to be so which was so but in some respect and the respects are intimated in the Text 1 In respect of baptism to which they come but as Parâus Comment in Matth. 3.7 John did not admit them as being unworthy 2. In reference to the covenant Gen. 17 7. which appears in that he adds For I say unto you that God is able even of these stones to raise up children to Abraham which can be understood no otherwise than of spirituall children who are children of the promise Rom. 9.8 which the Pharisees are not 3. In respect of that which they imagined that they should be sâcured from wrath to come v. 7 in that they had Abraham to thâir father Now what saith Mr. Sidenham to this 1. That they were of age and men degenerated from Abrahams saith that he did not refuse them because Abraham was their father or upon that account that Abrahams seed had not right to the promise bât as onely pretending Abraham to be their father when they walkt contrary to the principles of Abrahams faith Answer 'T is true he did not refuse them because Abraham was their Father nor as onely pretending Abraham to be their Father Nor doth he deny that it was true that they had Abraham to their father in respect of naturall generation but because though they had Abraham to their father in respect of naturall generation yet they did not believe as Abraham nor had right to the promise which is enough to shew that the children of believers are to be refused and not admitted to Baptism till they become believers themselves 2. Saith Mr. Sidenham This is the same as to grown men professing faith baptized and then not admitted to the Lords Supper because carnall and Apostate it âe said You have cut off your own right by your contrary actings which impeach not the truth of this position That believers and their infants are in covenant and ought to be judged so untill they manifest the contrary or that if they belieued themselves afterwards the promise should not be to them and their children And that the Text holds out no more than this that when persons are grown up to years and come to understanding they must then stand on their right and looke to make out personall qualifications for new ordinances Answer 1 It is not the same For such a speech should imply a former right now cut off but John Baptists speech disclaims any right they ever had to baptism 2. John Baptists speech proves believers children as such are not in the covenant for Abrahams children were not and that they ought not to be judged so until they manifest faith and repentance for Iohn Baptist denied them to be Abrahams children in covenant without them and that the promise is not to their children because they believe for the promise was not to Abrahams children by naturall generation though he were father of believers and it proves that none of Abrahams children have right to baptisme without faiâh and repentance and consequently infants no more than grown men But Mr. Sidenham yet thinkes to avoid the inference from this text thus 3. This was at the first institution of the ordinance when baptism was was newly administred now new institutions require grown persons and actuall visible bilievers to be the first subjects of them they could not baptize their children first for then the parents would be neglected And the bringing in of a new ordinance requires renewing of speciall acts in those which partake of it Now in the new Testament God renewes the covenant of Abraham adds a new initiating seal to it It was before entail'd in such a line which is cut off iâ's now of the same nature onely every one must come in his own person first as Abraham and enter his own name and then the promise to him and his seed Thus it was in the former place where when the Jewes came to be baptized they were exhorted first to repent and be baptized themselves then the promise is to you and your children Answer All this scrâbling is at random and wiâhout any proof or answer to the objection It is quite beside the objection which was not barely from John Baptists not baptizing their children but from the reason of Iohn Baptists refusing to admit themselves to
senses of his words which I set down might not be conceived to be his meaning and therefore his complaint of me is ridiculous and I shall have cause to censure him as a confused Dictâtâr rather than an accurate Disputer who doth so indistinctly set down his main conclusion That an adversary cannot determinely resolve what is the meaning and so neiâher easily examine his proofs nor know what to oppose Bââ he tells me he meant it of a visible priviledge in facie Ecâlesiae visibilis yet he doth not tell what that visible priviledge is He tells me That they have their share in Foedus externum but sets not down what share they have nor what he means by Foedus externum in which they have share And after he saith God would have the children of them who by externall vocation and profession joyn to the Church of God even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge wiâh them which hath also ambiguity in it For whereas there are many priviledges which the parents enjoy as R. G. to be baptized to be admitted to the Lords Supper perhaps the Father to be an Elder teaching or ruling or a Deacon in the Church and by Children may be meant persons of ten or twenty years old and while they are children may be understood either during their infancy or during their relation as children to their parents which is as long as they are men the words may be understood either that they have the same priviledge of admission to the Lords Supper or Church-government while they are infants or that they have even in infancy the same priviledge to be baptized that the parent had upon his profession Which last if it were his meanng as most likely it was then his second conclusion being the same with his Antecedent in his Euthymem his argument is an inapt tautology Infants of professors have the same priviledge with the parents to be baptized Ergo they are to be baptized which is to prove the same by the same yet this I must needs take to be his meaning till he shew what other priviledge wiâh their parents children of vi-sible professors have in infancy Then he distinguisheth of the Covenant of grace taken largely and strictly which distinction is shewed before Sect. 25 to have no footing in Scripture and to be inaptly used by Mr M. He distinguisheth of Jewes some Abrahams seed according to the promise some onely in the face of the visible Church and of being in Christ by the mysticall union and by visible and externall profession Which distinction I mislike not though they be not of use here sith they were not the terms used in his Conclusion He distinguisheth of Seals belonging to the Covenant the Seal of the Spirit and externall Seals But he neiâher shewâs where the externall seals as he calls them are tearmed Seals of the Covenant nor was the term Seal of the Covenant at all used in his conclusion Yea to shew how unskilfully he handles the matter in all these distinctions he doth not distinguish any of those terms that were in question and were the predicate in his proposition to wit to be accounted Gods to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils And this piece of unskilfulness is in that which followeth When therefore I say they are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I mean look what right a visible professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quà visiâle professor that right hath his child so to be esteemed But first this speech here explained was not in his Conclusion in his Sermon these words were not there They are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents but this They are to be accounted Gods to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the Devils 2. Were the sense here given the meaning of his Conclusion it would not be true For if the right belong to the visible professors quà visible professors the same right cannot belong to the child except he be a visible professor For what agrees to any quà talis as such agrees universaliter reciproce and therefore by this expression every visible professor is to be received and esteemed and every one to be so received and esteemed is a visible professor which cannot be said with any truth or shew of truth of the infant child of a believer Besides if this Conclusion were good an infant should have right to be admitted to the Lords Supper sith the parent hath right thereto as a visible professor But Mr. M. makes a large discourse to prove That to those to whom the spiritual part of the Covenant belongs not yet there are outward Church-privileges which belong to them as they are visible professors And to prove this he cites Gen. 6.1 Deut. 14.1 Gal. 3.26 Matth. 8 12. Acts 3.25 Rom. 9.4 Rom. 9.3.1 Iohn 8 17. Psal. 147.19 20. Deut. 33.4 Iohn 4.22 In answer to which I say â That I grant this speech to be true 2. I deny that the Texts are pertinent to the purpose of Mr. M. who intends this speech of Gentile visible professors whereas the texts are most of them of the privileges peculiar to the Jewish people namely Deut. 14.1 Matth. 8.12 Acts 3.25 Rom. 9.4 Rom. 3.1 Iohn 8.17 Psal. 147 19 20. Deut. 33.4 Iohn 4.22 Of the other two the former is of those before the Flood who whether they were called Sons of God by descent or profession or some other way it is uncertain The other Gal. 3.26 is to be understood of being the Sons of God really and the term All is to be limited as v. 27. by ye that are believers as the very words shew For when he saith Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Iesus it is plain this is meant onely of those who had faith in Christ Iesus 3. In all this discourse he doth not shew a Text proving the privileges he mentions to belong to the infants of Gentile visible professors Certainly some of them cannot be applied no not to the Infants of the Jewish nation as v. 9. that to them were committed the Oracles of God that to them God shewed his word c. 4 Nor doth Mr M. distinctly tell us which of these âor what other outward priviledge it is that belongs to the Infants of visible professors which is the onely thing pertinent to the present business After this he asserts That there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible Membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges and undertakes to prove it from Rom. 11. But I have in the first pârt of this Review shewed Mr Ms and others mistakes about the ingraffing Rom. 11.17 and proved that it is meant of giving faith according âo election Yet I grant it true which Mr M. asserts in those word and do take notice that pag. 110.
to all or believers onely and baptism by it must be of all men or onely believers And for a third covenant which they call outward Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 66 67 and elsewhere before cited hath proved it to be a signment and consequently there is no such to be sealed by baptism which may justifie baptizing of believers infants as their priviledge Nor if the covenant of saving grace be not made to all believers seed can the certainty of their salvation dying in infancy be thence gathered nor is the promise of salvation made to a believer and his seed universally then is the Anabaptists sentence no more bloody than Mr. Ms then do Mr Bailee and others in pri nt and pulpit clamorously abuse them accusing them of cruelty to infants of believers robbing parents of comfort concerning them when in truth we are as favourable in our sentence of infants as they and do give as much comfort as we truly can As for the visible membership which he ascribes to infants of believers in the Christian Church it will appear to be but a fancy in the examining what Mr. B. brings for it I objected that if the child of a Christian be a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians whereas it was wont to be a current saying Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt And if the Covenant of grace be a birth-priviledge how are they children of wrath by nature To this Mr. M. answers It is his birth-right to be so esteemed to be reputed within the covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church and alledgeth Gal. 2.15 Rom. 11.21 Naturall branches that is visible Church-members To which I say were I to write as a Geographer I should reckon the people of England old and young for Christians but as a Divine I should not so speak forasmuch as the Scripture no where calls any other Christians than disciples and professors of Christianity Acts 11 26. 26 28. 1 Pet. 4.16 The term Jew by nature Gal. 2.15 is not as much as visible Church-member by nature but by natural birth of that nation nor is the term Naturall branch Rom. 11.21 as much as visible Church-members by nature but onely descendents as branches from Abraham the root that is the father by naturall generation To be a visible Church-member I never took to be all one with to be in the covenant of grace but to be in the covenant of grace to be the same with a Child of the promise which is expressly contra-distinguished to a child of the flesh Rom. 9.8 The distinction of the outward and inward covenant is shewed before to be vain and to serve onely for a shift I said in my Examen Christianity is no mans birth-right and this I proved in that no where in Scripture is a person called Christian but he that is so made by preaching I said it is a carnall imagination that the Church of God is like to Civill Corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth which my words shew to be meant of the Church of Christians invisible as well as visible Nor is it to the purpose to prove the contrary that Mr. M. tells me The Jewish Church was in that like Civil Corporations For I grant it was the whole nation being the same Politick and Ecclesiastick body but this Church-state was carnall as their ordinances whereas the Christian Church hath another constitution by preaching the Gospel Mr. M. his cavill at my words In this all is done by free election of grace had been prevented if the following words had been recited and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as discent from men Christianity is no mans birth right Mr. M. shews not that God hath made it so in his Christian Church by any ordinance that the child should be baptized with the parent and therefore the objection still stands good The speech of Mr. Rutherfârd are Mr. Cotton and not to be reconcâled without making contradictories true My answer beaâs not against the reason of the holy Ghost Gen. 17.7 Nor is it true but that the holy-Ghost makes this his argument why he would have the male children circumcised and thereby reckon'd to be in Covenant with him because their parents are in Covenant with him but it is refused by M's own Concession pag. 182. That the command was the formal reason of their being Circumcised Yet this was not it which I called a carnal imagination but the speech that it is in the church of God as in civil Corporations Mr. M. pag. 123 takes upon him to defend his speech that in the time of the Jewes if God did reject the parents out of the Covenant the children were cast out with them Against which I excepted that parents might be Idolatries Apostates from Iudaism draw up the foreskin again and yet the children were to be circumcised which he denies not but saith Is it not evident in the Iewes at this day that they and their children are cast out together I grant this but this doth not make good his own assertion or overthrow mine Then he tels me If I would shew the falsity of it I should have given some instance not of parents who remain Gods people in external profession though their lives might possibly be very wicked but of some who were cast off from being visible professors and yet their Infants remain in the visible society of the church or of some who were visibly thus taken in and their infants left out Answ. If he meanes this of the christian church it is easie to give instances of Infants of those who have turned Papists Mahometans excommunicate persons who are accounted baptizâble by vertue of their Ancestors faith or for defect thereof because nationâs âs Mr. Rutherfurd affirms in his Temperate plea ch 12. concl 1. arg 7· But Mr. M. his speech was of the time of the Iewes and of their times before Christ he must needs say the same ââless he will acknowledg Idolaters such as Ahab Ahaz c. to have remained still Gods people in external profession He concluds the reply to the fift Section of my Examen thus But instead of this you still go on in your wonted equivocation of the word Covenant of grace taking it only of the Covenant of saving grace not including the external way of administration with it Answ. I do confess I do so take the word Covenant of grace not knowing any other Covenant of grace under the Gospel but that which is of saving grace and concieving I should speak false and nonsense if I should include in the Covenant of grace the external way of administration But to charge me with wanted equivocation whom he accuseth elswhere for destinguishing so much and equivocating in the use of a terme only one way âs a ridiculous charge it being all one as to
should be if an initial seal either of Circumcision or Baptism if either of these then this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed hath this sense I will bring it to passe that thou thy seed proselytes believers of the Gentiles and their seed even infants shall be circumcised or baptized If any can make any other sense of the words I shall be his debtor And if this be the sense then the promise is made a preâiction of infant-Circumcision and Baptism which whether it be not a ridiculous exposition I leave it to any considerate man to judge The Apostle Rom 9.6 7 8. where he expounds this very Scripture understands being a God of saving grace according to election and by Abrahams seed the elect onely Rom. 4 11 12.13 16 justifying of believers by faith Gal. 3.16.29 inheritance and blessing to believers throâgh Christ Jesus Our Lord Christ Luke 20 36 37 38. Of being the children of God and of the resurrection Mr. M. his self in his Sermon pag. 7. makes these words a promise of salvation to the infants of believers dying in their infancy pag. 10. he saith The substance of the Covenant on Godâ part was to be Abrahams God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion to be an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life And this he distinguisheth from the administration of the Covenant Yea in his Defence of his Sermon pag. 98. he conceives the right allegation of an expression of Cameron That Circumcision did seale primarily the temporall promise sanctification secondarily to have an untoward look as being incângruous to a covenant of grace in Christ to ratifie temporall blessings which they may have that shall have no portion in Christ. Hath it not then a more untoward look to make this pretended visible privilege to proselytes children though but visibly owning God and his covenanâ of having an initiall seal Circumcision and Baptism communicated to them meant by the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Much more to call this the Copy of Abraham the Father of believers Not that I deny temporall promises in that Covenant which I have proved to be mixt but I allege these passages onely to show the inconsistency of Mr. M. his speeches Besiâes the promise were not true so expounded for if this were the sense I will be the God of the posterity of proselytes owning God and his Covenant that they shall be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents then God doth promise that visible privilege to them for the words are a promise of an event not a declaration of a right and show what God would do not what they might claim which in many he performs not there being may of the seed of proselytes that never had the privilege and many of the children of Christian gentile believers who never had the visible privilege of being accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom whereas the word of God must be so expounded that it do not fall as about this very text the Apostle resolves Rom. 9.6 Mr. M. Defence part 3. pag. 127. saith It was not a personall privilege to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity taken into covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed and p. 129. This I add to make it more clear that that promise Gen. 17. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the naturall seed of believers Answer 1. What Mr. M. means by Taking into covenant is somewhat doubtfull to me by reason of his using the term Covenant sometimes for the outward covenant or administration sometimes for the promise of God and confounding these terms taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant being covenanters entring into covenant sometimes meaning these terms of the promise of grace sometimes of the initiall seal termed by him the Covenant and taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant sometimes being understood as they should always be in order to Gods act who alone takes into covenant and puts a man into covenant with himself but frequently though abusively by another mans act aâ the administrators act of Circumcision and Baptism very seldom of being in covenant or belonging to the covenant by the circumcised or baptized persons own act of promise though in respect of it onely in right speech a person is said to be a Covenantââ or to enter into covenant Of which thing I have often though in vain complained it causing obscurity which a man who is a teacher of others should avoid But concerning the promise Gen. 17 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee in their generations 1. I deny that Abrahams naturall posterity were taken into covenant that is circumcised as I conceive he means by vertue of that promise as I have often proved and is in effect confessed by Mr. M. Defence pag 182. when he saith The formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God 2. I deny that under the term Thee is meant any other than Abrahams individual person 3. I deny that under the term Thy Seed is ever âeant in Scripture the naturall seed of proselytes or Christian believing Gentiles 4. I deny that by the promise I wil be the God of thy seed can be concluded that which Mr M. asserts That thâs promise Gen. 17.7 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise wâiâh from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believer or that this was Abrahams Copy That upon his and the proselytes visibly owning God and his Covenant their posterity should have this visible privilege that they should be accounted to belong visibly to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents Nor doth Mr. M. prove this sense of that promise Gen 17.7 either from the words or their coherence or by comparing it with any other Scripture as yeelding that exposition of it elswhere but saith something pag. 127 128. of his Defence to which though I have answered it sufficiently in my Postscript to Mr. Blake Sest 6. pag. 119. yet I repeat it with addition because much of pleading of Paedobaptists is hence First saith he though Abraham was the Father of the faithful and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and pertake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God and gave him interest in the spiritual graces of the Covenant and none but himself yer it was so beneficial
and advantagious to his children that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdome and houshold and partake of the external priviledges of it and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it and so be fitted for spiritual privledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus traâned up so shall it be with them who become followers of Abrahams faith Ans. 1. Privileges of Abraham in that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed are either Evangelical belonging to Abrahams spiritual seed that is elect persons or true believers or domestick and political as that of multiplying his seed the birth of Jsaac continuation of his church in and from him in his inhereting posterity till Christs comming the birth of Christ deliverance out of Egypt possession of Canaan these belong to Abrahams natural seed yet not to all but to the inheriting not to Jshmael nor the sons of Keturah The former all are partakers of it who follow the faith of Abraham whether Iews or Gentiles but none are in refference to these promises reckoned Abrahams seed but those who are real believers in Christ. A Proselyte owning barely God and his covenant vissibly is not either Abrahams seed or partaker of the spiritual priviledges of sanctification justification salvation The latter sort of promises belonged to Abrahams natural posterity yet not to all but to the âeed inheriting nor to all of them but to the Iewes and in them for one of them to the line from whence after the flesh Christ came None of these were made to the bare vissible Proselites and their children though I grant their children where taken into the polliây of Israel and were to be circumcised and to eat the Passover yet neither did this priviledge belong to them by vertue of the covenant but the command nor for their faiths sake as the immediate adequate reason for then these shouâd have belonged to prâselites of the gate who beleived in God as Cornelius the Centurion who was a believer but they did not for he was not Circuâcised nor to be circumcised with his children if he had any nor blamed for defect of it but meerly so far as is exprest in Scripture because it was Goâs wâlâ to have it so Now Mr. M. brings not a word to prove either that the children of prosylites vissibly owning God and his covenant or the natural postâriây of christian proâessors of the Gentiles are either Abrahams seed or have such an Interest in exâernal church privileges as Mr. M. asserâs by vertue of that promise or thaâ whaâ agrees to Abraham in respect of exâernal church privileges for his faiths sake must agree either to only vissible prosylites or christians or real believers but speaks like a dictator not a disputer Nor is there any good consequence in this what agreed to Abraham for his faith's sake agrees to every believer For then every believer should be Father of the faithful as Abraham was for his faith's sake It is true that if the truth of Abraham's fâith were the immediate adequate reason of external privileges as iâ was of justification it would follow them what exâernal privileges agree to Abraham for his faith's sake should agree to every believer but such believers then must be true real believers as Abraham was not bare vissible prosyâiâs or christian professors But surly Mr. M. means no more by for Abraham's faiths sake but this that Abrahams faith was the motive or occasion God took to enter into covenant with him nor was it simply his real true faith but his remarkeable exemplary faith described Rom. 4.18 19. which was the motive or occasion of Gods entring into covenant with him which is not verefied of every true believer and the motive or occasion was not barely the truth but the eminent degree of his faith In my Postscript Pag. 119. I gave a like instance Matth. 16.18 19. the keyes of the kingdome of heaven binding and loosing were given to Peter for his confession sake yet it follows not the keyes are given to every one that makes the same confession as he did And the reason because the confession was eminent and exemplary at a special time and it was but the occasion not the immediate adequate reason of that gift to him for that was onely the special grace and purpose of Gods will 2ly saith Mr. M. Abraham's natural seed prosilites of other nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abraham's faith have brought their children into covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-member-ship as we know they did Answ. I do not know that the proselytes natural seed had the visible church-member-ship Mr. M. Mentions by vertue of the promise Gen. 17.7 and their parents faith but of Gods command Exod 12 48. 3ly saith he And we know also that this promise of being the God of believers and their seed was frequently renewed many hundreds of years after Abraham Jsaac and Jacob were dead and rotten as Deut. 30.6 so Esa 44.2 3. so likewise Esay 59.21 and this last promise your self acknowledg Pag. 54. to be intended chiefly of the nation of the Iewes at their last calling in And whereas you use to elude these texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect when they come to believe and reach not to any privilege which is external I reply by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham Jsaac and Jacob for to believers then as well as believers now were these promises made Answ That which I say is no elusion of the texts but so plain and evident that Paedo-baptists of note do concur with me Mr. Rich. Baxter in his letter to Mr. Bedford in the friendly accommodation between them To this and that which followeth I answer 1. These following arguments perswade me that you erre 1. no such promise thaâ giveâh certainly Cornovum or the first effectual grace to all the rightly baptized or to all the children of believers can be shewed in Scripture I will circumcise thy heart and of thy seed seems to me to be none such 1. because els it should not be the same circumcision that is promised to the parent of the child but there is no intimation of two circumcisions in the texr one to the father being only an increase or actuating of grace and the other to the child being the giving the first renuing grace 2. the text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant state but in their adult Deut. 30. For. 1. v. 2. The conditon of the promise is expressly required not onely of the parents but of the childâen themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the sam acts which are tequired of the parents viz to returne to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth
Mr. C. tells us Hence c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion and minding discourse about it But how from any thing said before That Christ is the head of the visible Church that visible Professors though not sincere are united to Christ as visible head this follows That Parents profession unites the child to Christ so as to give him right to baptism is a riddle to me If it were formed into an Argument thus If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism But the visible professors c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas nor is there any proof in that which follows For were it granted that the parents act were the childs act yet it follows not that it is the childs act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution None of the texts produced no nor any other do shew that the parents act of professing faith did entitle the child to circumcision much less to baptism Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision though he and his house feared God was a devout man gave much alms to the poor and prayed to God alway Acts. 10.2 Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule onely from the command as I have often poved Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church but obliging to duty Deut. 16.16 17 there 's an injunction That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God but this was enjoyned not to parents onely but also to children married or unmarried And if it prove any thing like what Mr. C. would it proves rather the males act to stand for the females than the parents for the children More likely in this the younger males did appear insteed of the aged weak so the childs act went for the parents However here 's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent Deut. 26.17 18. there 's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church What is said Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God is not said to be done by the parents for the children nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents or Captains Elders Officers or men of Israel It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church but to bind them the more firmly to their duty and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Childrens acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship Yet if they had that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved till the rule about Circumcision and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism and the Church-membership of the Christian Church which neither agrees with Christs or his Apostles appointment or the practise in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution Goverment but Judiazing notions opposiâe to the Gospel What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the childs act of breaking Gods Conant Gen. 17.14 depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the childs act of breaking Covenant but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat Schol. in locum Diodati new Annot. Grotius c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus the male the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people my Covenant is broken Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose they that expound it as Aben Ezrae apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his It is true Iohn 4.50 51. Matth. 15.22 to 29. Mark 9.12 to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children and so Mark 2.5 the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession any more than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Foââ nor was it the confession of faith but reality though not known to men which Christ lookd on so that if this be a good reason the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism After many dictates without proof he tels us As the Covenant laid hold on by the lively faith of gratious parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect feed yea albeit dying young as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9.6 yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing Ephes. 5.25.26 yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant-children Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant-fathers sake as such Rom. 11.28 and hence made as a ground of their return v. 15 16. so is there such validity in the covenant invested with church covenant albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his Spouse the visible church whence that respect of children of God and his church by vertue of that espousall covenant Ezek. 16.8 Even in the children of idolatrous members v. 20 21 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so cloathed Albeit many unworthy members are giât up in it to hold them and theirs in externall communion Jer. 13.11 untill either the church be divorced from God or the particular members be disfranchised by some church-censure of such a covenant-privilege Answer Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved and incoherent yet sith it carries some shew of an Argument à comparatis I shal say somwhat to it 1. There 's not aword in the texts alleged that shews what Mr C. here asserts that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to
any gracious parent concerning his naturall children It is true Rom. 9.6 it is said the word took effect and this I deny not to be the word of promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then it is expresly said v. 7 8. that this seed of Abraham is not his children by natural generation but the speciall choice seed whether they were his seed according to nature or ingraffed there 's not a word of the efficacy of this covenant by the lively faith of the parents but by vertue of Gods election v. 11. The Text Ephes. 5.26 seems to me to contain not onely the word of promise as sanctifying or purifying the Church but also the word of narration contained in the Gospel as Luke 1.2 Acts 8.4 10.36.44 Joh. 17.8.17 Rom. 10.8 preached and believed not by the parents but the parties purified Acts 15.9 who as they hear the word and believe so are baptized upon their believing It is true that the Jewes hereafter to be ingraffed again are said according to the election to be beloved for the Fathers Rom. 11.28 But this is meant of the Jewes onely and it is not at all meant of the immediate parents of those Jewes reingraffed for they doubtless will be Infidels but of the ancient Fathers Abraham Isaac Jacob out of the remembrance of their following God and Gods covenant to them which were both singular and therefore cannot be verrified of every believers natural children as it is there meant and shall be verified of them 2. There 's not a proof for the other part of the comparison that there is any such validity in the Covenant invested with Church-Covenant albeit unworthyly oftentimes held forth by the parents to beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God and to his spouse the Church visible For Ezek. 16 8. mentions Gods covenant which he swear not their's by which they became his and those whose sons and daughters were born to him v. 20. are said to sacrafice them to be devoured had caused them to be slain and deliverd them to pass through the fire for them Mr. C. confesseth they were Idolatrous members and the text mentions their Idolatry to be of the highest kind even the sacraficing their children and if these were in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenanant and did thereby beget an external filial relation to God and to his spouse the visible Church then may the worst of men even open Idolatrers that offer their children to Moloch and sacrafice them to the Devil be in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenant and therby in those whom God hates and who go a whoring after Idols yea the Devils in a most horrid manner there may be validity in this horrid estate to beget an external filial relation unto God to his spouse the visible Church for their children Horrendum dictu The meaning of the text and the impertinency of its allegation by the Assembly by Mr. C. and others hath been often shewed Jerem. 13.11 makes nothing to the purpose God in the wilderness had made the whole house of Israel to cleave to him in the Covenant at mount Sinai and by his special deliverances and providences for them What is this to prove that the Idolatrous posterity of that people are by the Covenant clothed with Church-covenant held to God they and theirs in external Church-communion until either that church be devorced from God oâ the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of a Church covenant privilege 3. were the first part of the comparison proved that the Covenant laid hold on ãâã the lively faith of the parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect seed yet there is not any liklyhood that the other part should be true that a bare dissembled profession should make such an external relation to God and his Church as if because Peters faith and confession obtains from God a special privilege Judas his profession must obtain something of God for his children though he were a Devil If there be strength in these dictates of Mr. C. their 's weakness is nothing The answers to the objections of I. S. proceed upon a conceit of a relative grace and implicit calling and of in-being in Christ without either Christs spirit or faith or profession of faith which are things that have no Scripture grounds The absurdity objected against his opinion that it entails grace to generation that it upholds a national Church âe puts off only thus He knowes we in N. E. which hold the one yet do not maintain the other in the usual sence of a national Church But this shewes not how he will acquit his doctrine from maintaining that by consequence which is disavowed by those of N. E. For if there be such a covenant and Church covenant now as there was Deut. 29.10 11 12. and Ezek 16.20.21.22 of validity to beget an external filial relation to God and to his visible spouse the Church it cannot be denied but that the worst Idolaters even Papists are visible Church-members and by consequent the whole nation elder and âonger are in the Church Which what it makes less than such a national Church as was of the Jews I understand not SECT XLII Animadversions on Sect. 7 of the same chap. shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external Interest therein IN the seaventh Sect. Mr. C sets down this conclusion that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church Covenant in respect of external interest therein In which as almost in all his writings about this point there 's much ambiguity He neither sheweth whom he means by the body of the Jewish Church whether every Jew or some only and if some who those are whether the most part or the chiefest nor what he means by the Covenant of grace what promise they are under nor how they are under it Nor doth explain what he means by Church-Covenant or investing with it nor what is the external interest therein which they have nor how they are under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church covant in respect of external interest therein and not with respect to internal interest For my part so far as I am able to discern his meaning this is it that all the Jews from the promise made to Abraham I wil be thy God the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 have this privilege that all should be accounted members of that Church and the males circumcised But I know not how it comes to pass this author either affects or it is his vein to use ambiguous expressions when he might use plain and to talk in a new phrases hard to be understood of the Covenant seal Church-seed c. And not to explain his conclusions afore
he proves nor to shew how he proves out of the text he allegeth but leaves his reader to fish out his meaning as he can from scattered passages However I shall view his dictates He denies that the Jewes had only a Covenant of grace among them which was made to some choice ones among them And yet the Apostle directly teacheth that the promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed as a promise of saving grace was not made to all Israel but the elect only Rom. 9.6 7 8. And clear it is that the Covenant made with the body of the Israelites at mount Sinai was the Covenant of workes as is plain from Rom. 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 7 9. Gal. 3.12 and 4.24 25. Heb. 8 9 10 11. c. and 12.18 19 21. It is false that he hath any where proved that the external Ecclesiastical right to circumcision came from the circumcised persons interest in the Covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant Neither did God appoint all them to receive the visible seal thereof meaning Circumcision for he did not appoint the females or males under eight dayes old to be circumcised though in the Covenant as well as the infant male of eight dayes old He bids us see Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 11 12 13. and 26.3 4 5. and 28.12 13 14. But I can see none of his dictates in those texts I find there that God made a covenant with Abraham after renewed it to Isaac and Jacob assuring to their inheriting posterity the inheritance of Canaan the multiplying of them c. that God injoyned circumcision to them for a memorial and assurance of that covenant This covenant as containing the promise of Canaan c. to the natural postority of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is expressed to be by reason of Abrahams obedience Gen. 26.5 circumcision is required Gen. 17. and Exod. 19. Levit. 26. obedience is required to the laws given by Moses They that term the Covenant Exo. 19. a covenant of works speak sutable to the Apostle Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 yet I deny not but in Covert expressions Gen. 17. and elswere God promised Christ to the elect whether Jews or Gentiles and blessing that is righteousness and eternal life by faith in him Gal. 3.16 c. which Abraham and all the ancient Saints expressed by faith Iohn 8.56 and elswhere Now it is not true that those covenant Fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob recieved the covenant Evaneglical in referrence to their natural children nor in respect of justification before God and external life had a contrary covenant of life and death grace and workes made with them For though the Jews succeding were under the whole law of Moses because of transgressions yet not so as to have life by it Gal. 3.17 18 19 21. noâ is it any absurdity to say that the legal justitiaries who rested in the law were at one and the same time externally under the blessing of God in respect of their outward prosperity in Canaan and yet internally under the curse of God Gal. 3.10 as seeking righteousness before God by their observing the Law It is no where said that any other than Abraham is the root or first fruits to his seed Rom 11.16 nor they termed his seed lump branches any other way than either naturally or spiritually that is by natural generation or by following his faith by vertue of election Rom. 11 16. doth not say Abraham was the root as recieving the covenant for the branches but as propagating the branches Nor need we say that he either received a covenant oâ works alone in referrence to them all elected or that he recieved the Covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all The plain doctrine of the Scripture is set down above Mr. C's dictates are meer phantasms without Scripture The substance of the Covenanâ is a novel expression and ambiguous I deny not the covenant Gen. 17. to be evangelical yet I concieve it not purely such but as I say in my Exercit. pag. 2. mixt that is containing political and Evangelical promises I deny not but it was the jews covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or their ordinances as their privilege yea and his presence therein until the Messiah came yet so as that when thay set up Idols the glory of God departed from them Ezek. 11.22 23. They had also Gods oracles with them deliverance from Egypt Christ to be with them in the wilderness nor do I deny these to have bin by vertue of Christs mediation yet so far as these were national mercies they were proper to the Jews What ever be meant by the Covenant the promise Rom 9 4. they do not agree to Gentile believers And though I say they were by vertue of Christs mediation yet I concieve the mediation of Christ was directly for the elect only for others only obliquely by consequent and by accident by reason of the Cohabitation of them on earth I deny not that filling the Temple with smoake Rev. 15.8 allusively to that which was 1 Kings 8.10 11. Isai. 6.1 2 3 4. might restifie the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people and for their sakes in a way of justice against his and their enemies I neither do nor need say that Canaan was all which God promised the Jews I grant it was promised to them as an everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 But the wrod ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which the Gr translate ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã everlasting notes freequently but a duration of some age or ages as 2 Chron. 2.4 c. I deny not but the Patriarchs looked futher than Canaan Heb. 11.9 10. I deny not that the promise of Canaan was in some sense ratified in Christ and all other temporal blessings to the elect now 1 Cor. 3.21 22 23. that Christ is said to drive out their enemies Exod. 23.20 21. and that the land they possessed was called Immanuelâ land Esâi 8.8 that sundry were excluded from thence for unbelief Heb. 3 laââ compared with ch 4 2. though if it be not warily explained Moses and Aaron should be guilty of the Gospel sin of unbelief If God promised to be a God to them and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17 7 8. then the promise of Canaan is a branch of the promise I wil be a God to them If the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams Covenant sealed to them and theirs by circumcision yet had no lots in Canâan then persons were to be circumcised to whom the promise belonged not I grant that Christ was mediator of the Covenant with Abraham so far as it contains evangelical promises but deny that it was held out to all the Jews by the sacrafices For though the typical sacrâfices in respect of purifâing the flesh did purge the whole Congregation yet none were purâed by Christs blood but the elect The high Preist bare the
to which I deny 1. the Major or sequele that if Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in their Church estate before they can make any personall confession or profession of faith in the covenant yet then are Abrahams Church-seed then is it Gospel that the promises belong to them Nor is it in substance or circumstance the Apostles Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his seed are the promises made For though it is granted that it is Gospel that to Abraham and his seed the promises are made yet it is utterly false that theâe is meant a seed of Abraham who are neither elect nor true believers but onely the naturall children of Gentile inchurched believers yea of Gentile visible inchurched professors of Faith whom Mr C. in a new language of his own without Scripture calls Abrahams Church-seed yea the Text is so manifestly against it that I wonder Mr C. could imagine any Reader would receive his Dictates about this Text. For the Apostle expresly limits the promises to Christ as the seed of Abraham and whether Christ be understood personally or mystically as Beza and others yet by the Seed are not meant the fictitious Church-seed of Abraham to wit the naturall children even of infants oâ visible inchurched Gentile-believers or visible professors of Faith but true believers or elect persons who alone are members of Christ mysticall And the promises are of the Spirit through faith v. 14. the inheritance v. 18. life and righteousness v. 21 22 which are made to none but true believers or elect persons To which I add that externall covenant-interest if there were such is never in Scripture termed the Gospel no not in those who rightly have it as true believers but Christs dying for our sins and justification by faith in him 2. I also deny the minor that the Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in Church-estate before they can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the Covenant yet then are Abrahams Church-seed Mr. C. takes upon him to prove the minor 1. in those of Abrahams loins in the elect seed I should think saith he it should not be questioned but yet it hath by some that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant c. And by such other speeches of our Adversaries in this point the covenant-right not only of the individual Infants of believers but the Covenant estates of that species and sort of persons is wholly denyed and so since it 's evident and acknowledged that some are elected of that sort yet it 's denied that they have part in the word of Gods covenants so that if they die in Infancy as many of the choise seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob did c. Yet that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied contrary to that principle Rom 9.6 But more hereof anon but Rom. 9 7 8 9 10 11. is so clear for it I wonder any deny it Isaac and Jacob are made precedential instances of interest not only of election but of Gods calling unto the fellowship of his free covenant without respect either to their desire or indeavour of it personally v. 16. Answ. There are sundry reasons which make me conceive that in this and many other passages in this argument Mr. C. aimed at my self Mr. Robert Baillee minister of Glasgow in Scotland had in the 2. part of his Diswasive intituled Anabaptism ch 4. pag. 92. charged me with spoiling all Infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace and denying all right to the new Covenant to Iewish Infants till in their ripe years they became actuall believers From which false criminations I have vindicated my self in the Addition to my Apology printed at London 1652. Mr. C. here tels of some who speak as if they held that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant that wholly deny the covenant estate of that sort of persons though they acknowledg some of them are elected of that sort yet it 's denied they have part in the word of Gods covenant and if they die in Infancy that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied them I have reason to conceive that these are calumnies of others sure I am if theyrae meant of my self they are calumnies and so shewed in my Books before cited and in other of my writings From which that I may stand free I further express my self distinctly thus 1. That by in the Covenant of grace I mean the promise of righteousness and external life by Christ Jesus 2. That I mean by being in the Covenant of grace or belonging to it the having this promise made to them by God whether Gen. 17.7 or Gen. 3.15 according to the speech of the Apostle Tit. 1.2 that God promiseth eternal life ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã before the times of the ages that is afore any age of man was past 3. that all the elect of God whether children of believers or unbelievers dying in Infancy or at the riper age are in this covenant of grace that is God hath promised eternal life to them by Christ they are given to Christ to save are children of the promise Rom. 9.8 4. That all these are Abrahams seed meant in the promise Gen. 17.7 though not actual believers 5. That all these have Christs meâââs and the spirits inbeing in them afore they dye as ordinary means of salvation 6. That none but these elect persons have the said covenant of grace or promise of righteousness and life by Châist made to them 7. That no where visible profâssers of faith is in the Covenant of grace 8. That the natural child of a believer no not the naturall child of Abraham the Father of believers was or is in the covenant of grace as their child or barely by vertue of their faith but onely the elect of them by vertue of their election by God 9. That these elect persons though elected and having the promise made to them yet have not the things promised if of years of understanding till they do believe they are not justified till then and so are not actuall partakers of the covenant of grace or not actually therein 10. That no where in Scripture is the naturall child of a Gentile-believer or a visible professor of Christian faith termed Abrahams Seed and the term of Abrahams Church-seed applied to such is a novel expression not grounded on Scripture 11. That the formall proper and adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was not his being in the covenant made with Abraham nor is the reason why any should be baptized bareâly his interest in the covenant of grace but the command of God in the one appointing males of eight dayes old of Abraahms house and Proselytes thereto to be circumcised in the other discipâes by their own profession of faiâh in Châist to be baptized 12. That the use of the terms Being in the
think it is not a condition of the promise v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. to wit of restoring from captivity upon their seeking of God But if it be made a condition of the promise v. 6. yet it is not a condition competent to Infants nor is it there made to any but the Israelites and to them onely at the time of their return from captivity in reference to their re-establishing in the land of Canaan and so was not common to them all much less to all believing Gentiles at all times It is untrue that the promise of saving grace is made to any onely externally or that it takes not effect in all to whom it is made or that any such thing is meant Rom. 3.3 9.6 7 8. though I deny not that there were many promises to Israel after the flesh which being indefinite in respect of persons and conditionall upon obedience to the lawes given by Moses took not effect in all the Israelites though in generall propounded and therefore notwithstanding some attained them not yet the faith of God was not without effect But all this is nothing to the objection concerning Gods covenant of saving grace in Christ which is not shewed to be made to any but the saved nor shewed to be in respect of the persons taken into covenant conditional 3 Saith Mr. C. This Argument supposeth that one cannot be within the Covenant of saving grace externally but they must be in a saving estate the contrary whereunto appeareth Concl. 3. And it is said of sundry illegitimate Jewish Children that they were within the covenant of saving grace namely externally for the Author cannot mean other And yet of all such who will say they were all in a saving estate Even Esau's Birthright was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it was a Church blessing as well as a Naturall and Civill Ans. That any one is in the covenant of saving grace onely externally is not proved before My words Examen pag. 78. which Mâ C. seems to mean âhât Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar Jephie of Gilead and many others were within the covenant of saving graces and Church-privileges are not meant of the covenant of saving grace exâernally onely but also internally Esau's birth-right was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it is that which Jacob was not born to for it was ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the right of the first born which Jacob had not but by purchase and blessing nor is it denied to be a Church-blessing but that it was the spirituall blessing promised to Abrahams seed to wit justification and salvation from the covenant of saving grace I do not conceive for that was not limited to the first born as the birth-right was and therefore it seâms to have been either the superiority or the inhâritance of Canaan or the descent of Christ and the Chuch of God from him to which I most incline the losse of whâch being a great losse and having with it the privation of interest in the covenant of saving grace he being hâted of God made Isaac tremble and Esau cry and were a ãâã instance to set before the Cristian Hebrews lest thây through prophane underââââing Christ fail of the grace of God Mr. C. adds 3. Object But saith â S. the Covenant of grace being a Covenant there must be a mutuall agreement betwixt the Covenanters and so knowledge and consideration of the terms thereof and restipulation as in mens covenants Henry Den a little differently maketh a necessity of the persons entering into covenant with God scil by faith unto covenant-right and not meerly Gods entering into Covenant with the creature for so he entered into covenant with the Beasts c. Gen. 9 10. Answer To which I answer the covenant of grace is as well a Testament 1 Cor. 11. Heb 9. Now a Testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without their knowledge nor do any usâ to deny a Childs right in the Testators will because it was taken in amongst other Legacies in the bequeathed Legacies before it understood the same Nor will it be denied in the case of the elect seed the choice parties in Gods Covenant Gen. 17. That they many of them dying Infants without actuall knowledge were not therefore children of the promise or that that solemn Covenant Deut. 29.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30.6 7 8 9 10 c. with that people wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts that therefore the Covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions the contrary being there expressed No rather it sufficed that the childrens covenant-estate being the parents privilege whence the encouragements to Abraham to walk with God Gen. 17.1 c. from that amongst other encouragements that God would become his Seeds God also v. 7. and so Deut. 29 and 30. amoongst other encouragements to the parents that is one v. 6. that God will do so for their seed also yea the children being reckoned as in their parents as Levi paid Tythes in Abraham c. Yea the externall avouching a Covenant may be of God being owned as the childrenâ Deut. â6 16 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the parents covenant duty whence called the Covenant or the covenant parties covenant part or duty as well as the token of Gods Covenant Gen. 9.7 9 10 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as well upon their childrens part as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Cvenant-condition and Bond too after imitation of their Father Abrahams purposeâ S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenanâ yea the bastard children of Judah and Gilead and others are acknowledged to be in the Covenant of saving grace which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge or faith or the like Answ. The Objection as it is not mine so I might let it and the answer passe but that there are some things in the answer to it that do requiâe consideration In the first part of this Review Sect. 5. answering Mr. Stephens his argumenâs for the Convertibility as he caâls iâ of a word of promise and a word of command from the general nature of Covenants between men and men I had said the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã âo not alwayes note a mutuall covenant and mutuall performancâs and instanced in Gen. 9.10 and said there is a single covenant as well as muâuall and further added that if it be true that such a convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the generall nature of Covenants then there can be no Covenant between God and Infânt ãâã Infant cannot contract If any say the Parents
do ãâã act for them to I say Be it so then according to this arguing they should also seal oâ be sealed for them Hereupân Mr Bl. Vindic Fâd Append. pag. 470. taks occasion to answer part of this maintaining pag. 479. that there is a mutuall contract and mutual performances to which persons are engaged not onely usually in covenants but in all covenants and that iâ is of the general nature of Covenants that there should be such a convertibility as that both must if not seal yet contrast or perform and where a Seal is vouchsafed must accept of it And to the allegation of Gen. 9.9 10. answers ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is taken improperly as Job 5.23 Whereto I reply That it must needs be confessed that Covenant Job 5.23 must needs be understood improperly for the stones of the field cannot properly covenant that is promise any thing who are there said to be in covenant with Man But Gen. 9.9 10. where God is said to establish his covenant with all living I see not why it should be taken improperly sith covenanting doth properly agree to God who doth in proper sense promise and in improper sense it would not be rightly said of God that he did not make a Conant but as it were make a covenant or do some other thing which is resembled by making a Covenant which must be the explication of that phrase if God be conceived to speak improperly If Mr Bl. do conceive any Tropicall impropriety of speech in that expression I suppose he cannot reduce it to any Trope in Rhetorick but that he will maâ the sense of the words And if Gods Covenant with Noah and his Sons be properly understood v. 9. I see not any reason why the same term wiâhout repetition applied to beasts as the object of the Covenant cân be taken any otherwise than properly Besides this Covenant Gen. 9.15 seems to be called Gods Oath Isa. 54.9 and therefore is properly taken Nor do I know any Interpreter who understands it improperly Paraeus hence gathers Foedus hoc est universale Dei cum omnibus creaturis terrestribus est absolutum non conditionaâum And the New Annotations of Mr. Lây on Gen. 9 10 have it thus Some allege this place against the Anabaptists and thus it may serve to refute this fancy viz. that the Covenant of God may be made with and the seal of the Covenant applied to creatures that have not the use of reason which they deny in denying the administration of Baptism to them Which passâge although it have this falshood that we deny that the Covenant of God may be maâe with or to Infants yet it appears that they who speak thus understand Gods covenant Gen. 9.10 properly The promise Heb. 8.10 of writing Gods Lawes in their hearts is called the Covenant unto which no covenant is prerequired and to take away the evasion as if it were not a covenant properly so called but a prophecy or but a part of the covenant there being other promises which prerequire conditions it is to be observed that it is not onely called the better Covenant v. 6. as being made a Law upon better promises and having a better Priesthood to execute it but also it is opposed to the Old Covenanâ and as coming in its stead and therefore if in the one it be properly meant it is so in the other and Jerem. 32. â0 the promise that He will not turn away from them to do them good but will put his fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from him is his Covenant The Covenant to Abraham and his seâd is called Promises Gal 3.26 which shews that promisâs on one part may bâ called â Covenant And though in Deâds indented there are mutuall promises yet in Deeds Poll as the Lawyers call them I think a person is said to covenant to another though there be no condition or promise required of him to whom the Deed is made As for that which Mr. Bl. saith Where there is a Seal vouchsafed the party to whom the promise is must accept of it it is true if it be required but it is expected that it should be shewed that God ever required the Infants of believers to be baptized in their own persons To return to Mr. C. Most of the things he answers are granted or else examined before but the chiefest thing in the answer is denied to wit that Parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and their passive reception of the Covenant-condition and Bond to after imitation of their Father Abrahams faith and obedience is or may be termed the Infants restipulation intituling to Baptism In the answer to the next Objection Mr. C seems to charge us rather than himself to block up the ordinary way to regeneration and to debar believers children from the ordinary means of their chief good by denying them interest in the Word of Promise the which is such a means c. But therin Mr C. his charge is but vain For the word of Promise which is the means of regeneration is not the covenant of externall privileges but the promise of saving grace in Christ which we debar them of no more than Mr. C. doth And when he denies that he makes every believer to be Abraham sure he must do so if he expound Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee Abraham that is to every believer and to thy seed that is every believers seed And when he grants that God doth not promise such a particular Land now as to Abraham and that the multiplying of Abrahams c. was of peculiar consideration he must grant that the Covenant made with Abraham had peculiar domestick promises not common to all believers which is all one as to say it was a mixt covenant and that circumcision had some reason from the promises in the covenant which were pâculiar to Abrams naturall posterity which is sufficient to prove there is not par ratio or the same reason of baptâzing infants as for circumcising them I find no where any but Abraham a Covenant-Father as Mr. C. would have it no where doth God say he would be a God to Isaac and Jacob and to their seed Nor is it said Rom. 11.16.28 that they were covenant Fathers to their posterity nor Jesse a Covenant-root to David Isai. 11.1 And by Mr C. his Doctrine inchurched believers are made Abrahams sith it makes the promâses to be to them and their seed which is ascribed to Abraham onely Gal 3.16 Luke 1.55 But Mr. C. objects That the Apostle calls all those inchurched Jewes of old our Fathers Fathers to him and to the Gentiles Corinthian members 1 Corinth 10.1 c. To which I answer They could not be called the Corinthians naturall parents being not descended from them nor their Covenant-fathers for they were many of them such as God was not well pleased with v. 6. and the Corinâhians desceâded not from them and therefore derived no exâernall
Church-privilege from them therefore either it must be understood that they were called Ancestors of the Corinthian Christians who are called Idolaters chap. 12.2 either in the sense we call any in foregoing generations our Fathers though we are not descended from them by naturall generation or else by the Figure of communication wherein that is spoken as common to others with the persons mentioned which is not common indeed but either ouâ of familiarity indulgence desire to ingratiate or such like reason we attribute it to them to whom it is not to be attributed as Paul Ephes. 2.2 3. Peter 1 Pet. 4.3 which was not true of them Philip. 3.6 Acts 23.1 but meant of the Gentiles to whom they wrot Col. 2.13 Gal. 2.15 and so Our Fathers is not of you Corinthians but of me and Softheues 1 Cor. 1.1 or by an enallage of persons as when Paul saith 1 Thess. 4.17 we which are alive it is not to be conceived to be true of himself or of any of the Thessalonians to whom he then wrot but it is We for They the first for the third person But saith Mr. C. If Isaac and Jacob were not such Fathers to their seed also as was Abraham in Covenant and Church-respects how then are the Jewes said to be beloved for their Fathers sakes Surely it was not for their sakes as men and naturall Fathers but as spirituall and Covenant-fathers Rom. 11.26 28. compared yea the Covenant is expresly made in those terms to Isaac to his seed to Jacob and to his seed Gen. 26.3 4 5 28 13 14. And so though they were Abrahams Church and Covenant seed yet Covenant Fathers to others and so Gentile inchurched believers are Abrahams Church-seed yet Covenant-fathers to their Children The term Root and first Fruits and the term Fathers Rom. 11.16.28 are not proved to be the same The Fathers it 's not denied to comprehend Isaac and Jacob as well as Abraham But they are called Fathers there in respect of the naturall generaâion of the Israelites to be re-ingraffed not as Covenant-Fathers propagating externall Church privileges even to Gentile inchurched believers For they are there reckoned as the Israelites progenitors not the Gentile inchurched believers progenitors Yet I deny not that God hath reference in that passage to his covenant made with them and his love to them and so the Jewes now broken off yet are beloved by God with an intention to restore their posterity out of remembrance of his ancient amity and covenant with their forefathers which cannot be verified of the Gentile inchurched believers in respect of their children Neither Gen. 26.3 4 5 nor Gen. 28.13 14 is either of the Evangelicall promises made to Abraham Gen. 17.5 A Father of many Nations have I made thee or that v. 7. to be a God to him and his seed made either to Isaac Gen. 26.3 4 5 or Jacob Gen. 28.13 14. though the promises of multiplying their Seed blessing them giving them the land of Canaan in their Seed blessing all the Nations or Families of the earth be there mentioned which with sundry passages of the Apostle Rom. 4.11 12 16 17. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3 16 29 and other places assure me those Evangelicall promises Gen. 17.5.7 were made to Abraham peculiarly neither as a Patriarch out of a reason common to him with other Patriarks nor as a believer âut of a reason common to him wiâh other believers but out of a peculiar consideration of âim either as Father of believers by his exemplary faith or as a person elected by God to have the covenant instated in him and his seed As for Mr. C. his answer to the objection from Rom. 4.16 if that Text prove not that all that are Abrahams seed are actuall believers yet iâ proves that the promise is sure to all that are Abrahams seed by actuall believing as he did and consequently are saved To his qustion If all members of the visible Church be not Abrahams seed what right have they to the seal of the covenant made to Abrahams seed I answer Right to Circumcision ând Baptism is not from the Covenant but according to Gods appointment to some whether they be in covenant or not Abrahams seed or not Gal. 4.26 28 31. Gal. 3.29 I have formerly shewed that by Vs all are not meant every Galatian Christian Professor but true believers as Rom. 8 32. 1 Cor. 12 13. 2 Cor. 3.18 therefore thence it cannot be gathered that any meer professor of faith is Abrahams seed much less his infants None but true believers are said Gal. 3.27 to be baptized into Christ and to put on Christ though others were baptized into his Name which appears verse 26. where they are said to be the Sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus and yet there were other than elect persons in that Church and they baptized Mr. C. methinks should not be ignorant that what is said of persons in the Churches indefinitely is sometimes verified onely of the choyce party 1 Cor. 1.1 1 Thess. 1.4 1 Pet. 1.5 2.9 by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part Nor doth Mr C. his distinction of baptizing into Christ putting on Christ being Children of the promise being by one spirit baptized into one body attributing these to all Sacramentally and in facie Ecclesiae suit well to these places in which the predicate cannot be attributed in truth to those that are meerly such As for the last Objection Mr. C. must needs be guilty of making three parties in the Covenant Abraham his seed Believers and their Infants For Believers are not comprehended under Abraham but under his seed nor believers naturall infants comprehended under Abrahams seed except they be true believers or elect persons nor in the covenant made to Abraham and his Seed doth Abraham sustain the person of all believers Jewes and Gentiâes but of the Father of them and therefore as yet Mr. C. his Conclusion remains unproved that the Covenant interest at least Externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched Believers is Gospel but a Figment of Mr. C. not found in Scripture SECT XLVI The 27 28 29 Chapters of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Faeder is are examined and it is shewed That he hath not proved the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times to admit or to be made to any but the Elect regenerate SIth Mr. Bl. is accounted one of the chief Patrons of Infant Baptism my purpose is to examine the remainder of that which he hath written in his Vindic. Foed against me for Infant Baptism and may be conceivâd to be yet unanswered Ch. 27 pag. 189 190. he heaps up many texts to prove that in old Testament times the Covenant was made with Israel in the vttermost latitude and extent with all that bore the name of Israel which I grant understanding it of the National Covenant Deut. 29. and of the Covenant of the Law Exod 20. c. but deny it being meant of the Covenant oâ
Covenant therefore it is before the Covenant and consequently the Covenant not the cause 6 If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not be as Mr. B. saith the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient then infants bought orphans of Turks c. wholly at our dispose are not visible Church members For they have no covenant made to their parents nor do their parents believe But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptised they are visible Churchmembers for such onely are to be baptised Ergo the Covenant is not the sole efficient there may bee visible Church membership without it The same may be said of foundlings persons of unknown progeny c. 7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession make not the parent a visible Churchmember neither doth it the childe For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onely a visible Churchmember cannot be such without his being such But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember without profession Ergo The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants 8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Churchmembership The consequence is plain and needs no further proof But the antecedent is true Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites who are visible Churchmembers but not by the Covenant of grace for that promiseth nothing to them 9. If infants be visible Churchmembers by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing then either the next parents or any in any generations precedent If the next onely let it be shewed why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it if in any near gânerations let it be shewed where we must stick and go no further why suppose the visible Churchmembership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible Church-membership as well as the Grandfathers if there be no limit why this visible Churchmembership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews yea to âll the world If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor 10. If an infants visible Churchmembership be by the covenant upon the parents actual believing and not a meer bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown But that is absurd Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review sect 35. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent then neither this But the antecedent is true the child is not a believer a disciple a minister a son of God c. without his own consent Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this 12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted or the listing of infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. assigns But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration but by neither Ergo. If by Precept in the New Testament or the Old Not in the New there is no Precept to Minister or parenâs or any other to take infants for visible Churchmembers or to list them as such Nor in the Old there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision which is repealed vowing praying c. did neither then nor now of themselves make visible Churchmembers although upon the prayers and faith not onely of parents but of others God granted remission of sins conversion cure of plagues yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers of themselves If there be any other Declaration of God it is either a positive law or law of Nations or of Nature Not any positive law if there be let it be produced not any law of Nations This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth that as it is in Kingdomes and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents so in the Church But if this were a rule in the Church of God then not onely âhildren must be visible Churchmembers but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants and their children as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects and sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement pag. 14 15. All are bought by Christs death and are his own every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember Nor any law of Nature For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this yet the vanity of it appears 1. In that since the fall of man the nature of man being corrupt the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace and free counsel of God 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature where the husband is there the wife should be a visible Churchmember as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember there the child should be so too For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child But that is false Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Churchmembers then Churches should be by natural discent But that is false it is by calling as is above proved 4. Churches are by institution therefore not by the law of Nature This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis that they are made Churchmembers by grant covenant gift on condition 5. If they were by the law of Nature all Churches should be domestical not congregational or parochial for they are not by nature but by institution 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model But they are not so they are called sometimes by Preachers sometimes immediately by God sometimes by authority sometimes they are national sometimes catholick sometimes under one form of service and discipline sometimes under another sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember sometimes the father the son sometimes the wife of the husband sometimes the husband of the wife by which the
infants but also all infants if it be so much for their good welfare preservation real happiness and the law of nature ties them as well as parents to do what lies in them to do them good upon such hopes and encouragement and sith they are in their power as well as parents yea before them and they may list them into Christs army enter them into Covenant and the Church they are bound to do it Yea considering that Mr. B. of Baptism part 2. ch 8. holds that by Christs commission Mat. 28.19 Disciples should immediately without delay be baptized as soon as they are Disciples and believers infants are Disciples as soon as they are born and none can do it so soon as Midwives they ought to do it according to Mr. Bs. hypotheses immediately upon their birth Which will go very far in justifying the Papists about their hasty baptism by Midwives Yet again saith Mr. B. 4. It is the duty of Parents by the Law of Nature to accept of any allowed or offered benefit for their children But the relation of a member of Christs Church or Army is an allowed or offered benefit to them Ergo c. For the major these principles in the law of nature do contain it 1. That the infant is not sui juris but is at his parents dispose in all things that are for his good That the parents have power to oblige their children to any future duty or suffering that is certainly to their own good and so may enter them into covenants accordingly And so far the will of the Father is as it were the will of the childe 2. That it is unnaturally sinful for a parent to refuse to do such a thing when it is to the great benefit of his own childe As if a Prince would offer Honours and Lordships and Immunities to him and his heirs if he will not accept this for his heirs but onely for himself it is unnatural Yea if he will not oblige his heirs to some small and reasonable conditions for the enjoying such benefits For the minor that this relation is an allowed or offered benefit to infants is manifested already and more shall be Answ. I meant of visible members in the Christian Church properly so called this last speech is denied He goes on thus And this leads me up to the second point which I propounded to consider of whether by the light or law of nature we can prove that infants should have the benefit of being Church-members supposing it first known by supernatural revelation that parents are of that society and how general the promise is and how gracious God is And 1. it is certain to us by nature that infants are capable of this benefit if God deny it not but will give it them as well as the aged 2. It is certain that they are actually members of all the Commonwealths in the world perfectè sed imperfecta membra being secured from violence by the lawes and capable of honors and right to inheritances and of being real subjects under obligations to future duties if they survive And this shews that they are also capable of being Churchmembers and that nature revealeth to us that the infants case much followeth the case of the parents especially in benefits 3. Nature hath actually taught most people on earth so far as I can learn to repute their infants in the same religious society with themselves as well as in the same civil society 4. Under the Covenant of works commonly so called or the perfect rigorous law that God made with man in his pure nature the infants should have been in the Church and a people holy to God if the parents had so continued themselves And consider 1. that holiness and righteousness were then the same things as now and that in the establishing of the way of propagation God was no more obliged to order it so that the children of righteous parents should have been born with all the perfections of their parents and enjoyed the same priviledges then he was obliged in making the Covenant of grace to grant that infants should be of the same society with their parents and have the immunâties of that society 2. We have no reason when the designe of redemption is the magnifying of love and grace to think that love and grace are so much lesâ under the Gospel to the members of Christ then under the Law to the members or seed of Adam as that then all the seed should have partaked with the same blessings with the righteous parents and now they shall all be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 5. God gives us himself the reasons of his gracious dealing with the children of the just from his gracious nature proclaiming even pardoning mercy to flow thence Exod. 34. and in the 2d Com. 6. God doth yet shew us that in many great and weighty respects he dealeth well or ill with children for their parents sakes as many texâs of Scripture shew and I have lately proved at large in one of our private disputes that the sins of nearer parents are imputed as part of our original or naturâl guilt So much of that Answ. 1. All these considerations if they were yeelded to be true would as well prove that by the light of Nature infants should be invisible Churchmembers as visible which would contradict the Scripture Rom 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. yea rather sith the 4th consideration upon which the inference rests chiefly is from the state in which persons were put by creation and redemption which is into the invisible rather then the visible Now then if these considerations are not sufficient to assure parents who are in the invisible Church that their infants are in the same society neither are they sufficient to assure them they are visible Churchmembers 2. It is a calumny of Mr. B. which is insinuated as if I held that all the seed of believers shall be turned out of the society whereof the parents were members 3. It is a gross conceit and contrary to the plain doctrine of the Scripture concerning election and reprobation of Jacob and Esau which is intimated as if the designe of redemption under the Gospel to the members of Christ should be that as the members or seed of Adam so all the seed should partake of the same blessings with the righteous parents 4. What hee saith he hath largely proved in one of the private disputes at Kederminster among the associate Ministers in Worcestershire as I conjecture I do not contradict peremptorily as not knowing how he stated the question nor what his proofs were Yet it seems to mee to be an errour nor am I very apt to give assent to Mr. Bs. determinations however the associate Ministers may perhaps take him for a Pythagoras whose ipse dixit must not be gainsaid Once more saith he Yet before I cite any more particular texts I will add this one argument from
Abraham and Sarah the rock whence they were hewen and the hole of the pit whence they were digged Abraham their father and Sarah that bare them and mentioning Gods calling him alone blessing him and increasing him as the cause of it which doth prove that it was by the transeunt fact which I described not by Mr. Bs promise and precept that they were Churchmembers and this as a new thing God having chosen no other people of the earth as he did the Jews Deut. 7.6 And therefore I deny Mr. Bs. minor and conclude that visible Church-membership of infants was onely in the nation of the Hebrews not by a promise to be a God to believers and their seed and a precept to parents to dedicate them to God and list them in Christs Army but by the transeunt fact of calling Abraham blessing multiplying him bringing them out of Aegypt to himself which was to be demonstrated Lâtâs yet view Mr Bs. confirmations whether they be any better then his primitive establishments SECT LIX The sayings of Adam Eve Noah concerning Cain Seth Shem the term sons of God Gen. 6.2 prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Church-membership unrepealed NOw for the Texts saith he that further intimate such a foregoing establishment 1. There seems to be some believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living For it is to be noted what Bp Usher saith Annal vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum post semen promissum mulieri Evae nomen a marito est impositum Gen. 3.20 quod mater esset omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam sed illud quoque quod est per fidem in semen ipsius Messiam promissum quomodo post eam Sara fidelium mater est habita 1 Pet. 3.6 Gal. 4.31 He put this name on her after the promise because she was to be the mother of all the living not onely that live the life of nature but that which is by faith in the Messiah her seed So that as she was the root of our nature we are her natural seed and as she was a believer and we the seed of her a believer so is she the mother of a holy seed and we that are her seed are holy as a people visibly dedicated to God Answ. Though the exposition were allowed and the inference thereon that we that are her seed that is by faith in the Messiah are holy yet it follows not that we are so as a people visibly dedicated to God much less that our infants are so without their own faith by vertue of their parents dedication And therefore this Text according to Mr. Bs. exposition which yet may be questioned yeelds no confirmation of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed 2. Saith he When Cain was born his mother called him possession because she had obtained a man of the Lord that is saith Ainsworth with his favour and of his good will and so a son of promise and of the Church And therefore it is to be noted that when Cain had sinned by killing his brother God did curse him and cast him out of his presence Gen. 4.14 16. So that he was excommunicate and separated from the Church of God saith Ainsworth that is from the place of Gods word and worship which in likelihood was held by Adam the father who being a prophet had taught his children how to sacrifice and serve the Lord. So on the contrary to come into Gods presence or before him 1 Chron. 16.29 is explained in Psal. 96 8. to be the comming into his Courts Very many learned men give the same exposiâion of it Now if Cain were now excommunicate then was he before of the Church nay it 's certain by his sacrificing and other proof however this Text be interpreted But no man can give the least reason from Scripture to make it so probable ãâã he entred into the Church at any other time as we give of his entrance at his nativity Answ. Eve doth not say that she possessed a son of God member of the Church from the Lord but a man by vertue of the power given to the parents for procreation Gen. 1.28 notwithstanding the curse Gen. 3.16 which was from the Lord Psal 127.3 Gen. 30.2 that is by his providence and in some respect with his favour and good will considering her desert and danger it was that she possessed him when both their lives were in so great hazard That Cain was a Churchmember visible from his infancy hath no probability there being no hint of it in that Text or any other The proofs that infant visible Church-membership was onely in the Hebrew Nation have beene shewed before Also saith Mr. B. When Eve bare Seth she so named him as a son of mercy in faith as appointed her by the Lord to be in Abels room faithfull as Abel and the father of our Lord afteâ the flesh as Ainsworth on Gen. 4.25 And is there no intimation in this that Seth was an infant member of the visible Church I confess he that shall excommunicate this appointed seed or saith that Seth was without the Church in his infancy doth speak in my ears so improbably and so unlike the Scripture that I am very confident I shall never believe him Answ. Nor should I meaning as Mr. Ainsworth seed that is another son that as Abrahams seed was called in Isaac Ishmael being excluded Gen. 21.12 so Eves seed should be in Seth thaâ is the elect seed and so he a member of the invisible Church in infancy and yet there 's no inâimation that âe was an infant member of the visible Church from which Ishmael was not excluded In which though I pâace not Seth yet I do not thereby excommunicate Seth or say that he was without the Church in his infancy Mr. B. adds Note also that as God had thus cast out Cain and supplied Abels room by Seth and had given each of them posterity so we find him in a special manner registring the successors of the righteous and putting two titles on these two distinct generations calling some the sons of God and others the daughters of men Gen. 6.2 Supposing that you reject the old conceits that these sons of God were Angels that fell in love with women the current ordinary exposition I think will stand that these were the progeny of Seth and other members of the Church who are called the sons of God and that it was the progeny of Cain and other wicked ones that are called the daughters of men Where note that they are not themselves denominated wicked but the children of men as being a generation separated from the Church from the birth And the other are not themselves affirmed to be truly godly ones but sonâ of God as being the seed of the Saints not cast out but members of the Church or the sons of those who were devoted to God and so devoâed to him themselves a separated generation belonging to
Rom. 11.11 12. that through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles the fall of them is the riches of the world the diminishing decay or loss of them the riches of the Gentiles Which happened not through the wickedness of infants above other men but partly through the wickedness of the Jewish people of which the infants were a part and onely Churchmembers there and while that nation were Gods Church partly through Gods contrivance which was that the Gentiles should have their course of mercy while the Jews were broken off and at last both have mercy in their season Mr. B. goes on in his cavilling vein If this doctrine be true why may we not expect to be taught that infants must also be cast out of heaven in mercy to the whole catholick Church Answ. Becaâse we find no such taught by the Apostle as the other doctrine of mine concerning the mercy to the catholick Church is by breaking off âhe Jewish Church If iâ be saith he no carnal Churchstate to have infants in heaven why is it a carnal Churchstate which containeth infants in it on earth Answ. That any are infants in heaven it s not likely 2. If there should be yet being fully sanctified they should not be carnal but spiritual and the Church there onely consist of spiritual persons by spiritual regeneration whereas if the Church Christian should consist of infant visible Churchmembers by carnal generation the state of it would be carnal as the Jewish was and not spiritual by faith as the Scripture makes it Joh. 1.12 13. 3.5 6. Gal. 3.26 27. Again saith Mr. B. And if it be no benefit to the Catholike Church to have infants kept out of heaven nor no hurt to the Church to see them there why should it be a benefit to the whole Church to have them kept on earth or any hurt to the Church to see them here members Answ. It were no hurt if God had so ordered it their non-visible Christian Churchmembership is a benefit to the Catholike Church in the manner before said because God hath so ordered it But yet saith Mr. B. let us come a little nearer what ever it may be to enemies or to man-haters of which sort the Church hath none yet me thinks to those that are love as God is love and that are merciful as their heavenly faâher is merciful and who are bound to receive little children in Christs name and who are become as children themselves to such it should seem no such mercy to have all infants unchurched But such are all true members of the Church and therefore to the Church it can be no such mercy Answ. I wish it were true that the visible Church of which we are speaking hath no enemies or man-haters It is not true that wee are bound to receive little children in Christs name nor do I say that it is a mercy to have all infants unchurched or that they are all unchurched nor do I think it true thât all true members of the Church visible are such as Mr. B. describes But this I say the non-visible Church-membership Christian of infants is such a mercy as I describe however it seem to the Church But yet nearer saith Mr. B. Whatsoever it may be to strangers yet me thinks to the parents it should seem no such mercy to have their children put out of the Church Hath God naturally planted such tender affections in parents to their children and doth grace increase it and the Scripture encourage it and yet must they take it for a mercy that their children are put out when Mr. T. will not say it is a mercy to the children Answ. To the parents notwithstanding their natural affection it is a mercy and ought to seem a mercy that God hath dissolved the Jewish National visible Churchmembership and by consequent their infant visible Churchmembership and hath freed them and their infants from the legal bondage and hath out of all nations gathered his Church by preaching the Gospel without admission of infants into the visible Church Christian. And surely if this reason were good parents might complain that their children are not admitted to the Lords supper as the Jews children were to the Passeover Yet further saith he why then hath God made such promises to the parents for their seed as if much of the parents comfort lay in the welfare of the children if it be a mercy to them that they are kept out of the Church may not this doctrine teach parents to give their children such a blessing as the Jews did His bloud be on us and our children For their curse is to be broken off from the Church and if that be a mercy the Jews are then happier then I take them to be And how can we then pray that they may be graffed in again Answ. I find no promises in all the New Testament much less Evangelical promises made to believing parents for their seed nor any whit of the comforts of parents in the New Testament in the welfare of their children but in Christ and in the fellowship of the spirit Phil. 2.1 Yea whereas in the Old Testament most of the promises were of increase of children their prosperâây rest and peace in their dwellings c. in the New Testament an unmarried estate if without sin is rather preferred as more happy 1 Cor 7.14 and the poor and persecuted rather adjâdged blessed then the rich and those that live in pâace Matth 5.4 10. However parents have as much comfort by my doctrine rightly understood as they can have by Mr. Bs. Nor doth it teach parents to curse their children as the Jews did The curse of the Jews was not in being broken off from the Jewish Church national but in being not in the Olive that is the Church of true believers but in the national Church Jewish and that they were not broken off from it was their unhappiness and we are to pray not that they may be graffed in again into the national Church Jewish but into the invisible Church of true believers and elect persons 6. Saith Mr. B. But what if all this were true Suppose it were a mercy to the whole Church to have infants put out yet it doth not follow that God would do it He is the God of infants as well as of the aged and is mercifull to them as well as others all souls are his He can shew mercy to the whole Church in an easier way then by casting out all their infants And his mercy is over all his works Answ. God is the God of the spirits of all flesh yet he hath not mercy on all flesh all souls are his yet he did not take any one nation for his people besides the Jewish his mercy is over all his works yet he hath broken off the Jews from being his people he is naturally mercifull yet sheweth mercy freely as he will I say not he casteth out all infants of the Church
faith but by a prosopopeia the righteousness of faith is brought in as directing the believer To the second it is true Paul addeth the very exposition to every sentence buâ not an exposition of the Text in Deut. 30.12 13 14. but an exposition of the words of the righteousness of faith as they are applied thence by the Apostle to his purpose And yet plain Texts which are not so accomodated I cannot âo put off as I will Your last answer saith Mr. B. is the worst of all You say if the Covenant did contain promises purely Evangelical yet the Covenant in respect of them cannot bee meant of all and every of the Israelites that God would bee a God to them that is sanctifie justifie adopt them to bee heirs of eternal life Answ. 1. God saith you stand all here c. to enter into the Covenant and oath c. And you say it cannot be all whom shall we believe God or you Answ. Both for we say in this point the same that some in the name of all did enter into Covenant and his oath to be a God in them and yet he not be a God to them all that entred into the Covenant but to to them onely that kept the Covenant 2. Saith hee You foully mis-interpret the promise to bee to them a God as if it were such as could bee verified to none but the elect God hath pâomised to others to bee their God who are not elect as is undeniable in the text Therefore in a larger sense as I have before in due place fully explained it Answ. It is sure foul language to tell me I foully mis interpret the promisâ to be to them a God when I interpret not at all tâe promise Deut. 29.13 but onely infer from Mr. âs interpretation of it as purely Evangelical which I count false that then it in respect of promises purely Evangelical should be meant onely of the elect which I agree with him to be absurd Nor is the matter salved by telling me that God hath promsed to others to be their God who are not elect For however hee hath not promised to be a God in respect of promises purely Evangelical to be a God by sanctifying justifying adopting to eternal life to any but the elect Yet Mr. B. asks me And why may not God promise justification adoption and sanctification in the sense as Divines and Scripture most use it for the work following faith and eternal life and all on the condition of faith and this to more then the elect and hath he not done so But of this and of infants condition before Answ. 1. By sanctifying I meant the sanctifying by which faith is produced which is the same with regeneration writing the lawes in the heart Heb. 10.16 and is used so 1 Cor. 1.30 6.11 c. and thus he sanctifieth onely the elect Ephes. 1 4. 2 Thes. 2.13 and I supposed Mr. B. had meant the same by circumcision of the heart to love the Lord Deut. 30.6 and that hee included it in the promise of being a God to them Deut. 29.13 and this sure is proper to the elect if Mr. B. say true Friendly accommod p. 362 Cor novum is given to the elect onely And sure if Mr. B. did not mean this he did not mean the Covenant of grace or the Gospel covenant in which this is the first promise Heb. 10.16 2. But let after-sanctification be onely meant and justification condition of faith yet I think the promise is made of these to none but the elect âith none are believers but they An offer may bee made to others by men but no promise by which God is bound and will performe it to any other 3 If the Covenant bee on condition of faith then it is not made to infants for they believe not Nor is the promise made to infants on condition of parents faith for though Mr. B. dream so yet the Scripture saith not so nor is it true For 1. the promise should then be made to Esau as well as to Jacob in infancy which the Apostle refutes Rom. 9 11 12 13 2. If the promise were made to infants upon their parents faith then God is engaged to sanctifie them in infancy and if so he doth it and if he do either holiness by sanctification of the spirit may bee lost or else they must all go to heaven for all holy ones go thither 3. The promise to the father is upon condition of his own faith therefore so is the promise to the child for there is not a different promise to the father and the child upon different conditions But I hasten He adds You would sain say somewhat too to that Deut. 30.6 but like the rest 1. You confess it is a promise of spiritual grace but to the Jewes after their captivitie 2. ând upon condition of obedience 3. And not performed to all their seed but onely to the elect Answ. 1. But did God promise spiritual grace to the Jews after the captivity and not before Repl. The promise Deut. 30.6 is to the Israelites to do it for them onely after their captivity I said not after the captivity as Mr. B. speaks Was not the promise saith he made to them that then were Repl. It was Were not they saith he captivated oft in the time of the Judges and so it might at least be made good then Repl. I grant it If God saith he would do as much for them before they forsook him and brake the Covenant by rebellion as he would do afterward when they repented then he would circumcise their hearts before as well as after But the former is true therefore the later Repl. I grant it yet this proves not the promise as it is there Deut. 30.6 to be made to them of what God would do for them afore their captivity 2. Saith hee And if it bee on condition of obedience then you confess there are conditional promises and then it was made to more then the elect Answ. I deny the consequence 3. Saith hee If it were not performed to any but the elect no wonder when it was a conditional promise and the rest performed not the condition which God will cause the elect to perform Answ. Sure it was not promised to any but to whom God performs it For though it were on a condition of theirs yet it was such a condition as was to be wrought and was promised by him which hee did onely to the elect And thus Mr. B. may see my vindication or my descant on this text and the Reader perhaps will wonder at the vanity and wilfulness of Mr. Bs. exceptions against it SECT LXVIII Neither from Rom. 4.11 nor by other reason hath Mr. B. proved ch 18 19. part 1. of Baptism That Infant Churchmembership was partly natural partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith CH. 18. Mr. B. writes thus My 13th arg is from Rom. 4. almost all the Chapter wherein the
as well as visible churchmembership of all infants of believers and the visible churchmembership of the seed unborn as well as born and of the most open profane children of believers as well aâ the youngest children born into the world 2. The love of God was never to the faithfull and their seed universally I mean the special distinguishing love of God nor to any of them but according to his election of grace 3. God might and did love the faithfull and their seed and yet the infant seed were not visible churchmembers afore Abrahams time 4. The reason of that regard God had to Abrahams inheriting posterity to take their infants for visible churchmembers was from his peculiar dâsign he had on that people to make them the people from whom his sons comming should be expected which he vouchsafed not to believers of other people whom yet he loved and their seed in respect of Gospel mercies 5. The beginning of infants visible churchmembership is sufficiently shewed bâfore in that it is not shewed to have been any where but in the Hebrew nation 6. If Adams infants he standing in integrity had been visible churchmembers yet they had been such onely in the Church by nature which is nothing to the present point of visible churchmembership in the Church instituted by electing some to be of the Church and some not From hence I answer to the argument 1. by denying the antecedent that there is no mention in the Scripture when the churchmembership visible of infants did begin 2. The consequence of the major if it did not it proves not the visible churchmembership of infants afore Abrahams time much less from Adams creaâion sith then there was no such Church to be as now we enquire âf and Gods love might be to believers seed and yet they no visible church-members The last argument whereby Mr. B. would evince infants visible churchmembership before Abrahams time which he saith here he had not leisure to improve largely he hath in his Letter to me before recited I think to the utmost he could urged it and the answer thereto is fully made here sect 54 55 56 57 58 59. and thereby it may appear not onely to a man of common sense but of acute sense that there is likelihood that infants should be visible churchmembers in Abrahamâ family and yet not in the foregoing Patriarchs and that from the Scripture and yet Gods love as great to Noah Sem and their seed as to others Nor is it true that all these Churchmercies are bestowed upon the standing Gospel grounds of the Covenant of grace entred wiââ our first parents presently upon the fall but visible Churchmembership of infants was upon the special transeunt fact of God in taking the Hebrew nation to bee his people And though the promise Gen. 3.15 comprehend infants yet not all infants and I wonder how Mr. B. beeing a man of common sense should not discern that if hee will have the whole seed of the woman comprized in the promise Gen. 3.15 and that they are thereby Churchmembers hee must baptise all the posterity of Eve which hee makes a thing to bee avoided p. 120. and gives cautions against it And it is to me a sign of his palpable inconsiderateness in this his hasty scribling that he cites Revel 12.17 to prove Satans enmity against the whole seed of the woman against our infants no doubt when the woman Revel 12.17 is not Eve as Gen. 3.15 but the woman cloathed with the Sunne commonly conceived to represent the Chrâstian Church and the seed are said to keep the Commandments of God and to have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST which cannot bee said of infants But I leave him to the Lord to give him either repentance for his abuse of Scripture and perverting the truth or to let him fill up the measure of his iniquity and proceed to the next Ch. 24. arg 19th If God bee not more prone to severity then to mercy then hee will admit of infants to bee members of the visible Church But God is not more prone to severity then to mercy Therefore he will admit of infants to be visible Churchmembers All that needs proof here is the consequence of the major proposition which is made evident thus God hath cut off multitudes of infants of wicked men both from the Church and from life for the sins of their progenitors therefore if he should not admit some infants of faithful men so much as into the visible Church then hee should bee more prone to severity then to mercy except it bee proved that God giveth some greater mercy out of the Church which is not yet proved All the children of Dathan and Abiram and their accomplices were swallowed up with them for their rebellion and so cut off both from the Church and life Achans sons and daughters were all stoned and burned for his sin and so cut off both from the Church and life Jos. 7.25 ââ Yea it was the stablished law of God concerning any City that shouâd serve other Gods by the sedâcement of whomsoever that is if they should break the Covenant for the Covenant is that they take God onely for âheir God then that City should wholly be destroyed and not so much as the infants spared Deut. 13.12 13 14. c. And God concludeth it in his moral Law that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate him All the infants of Amalek are slain with the parents by Gods command Num. 31.17 they that dash the children of Babylon against the stones are blessed Psal. 137.9 The children of Daniels accusers are cast unto the Lions Dan. 6.24 Yea God commanded Israel to save the life of no one infant of all the nations that were given them for inheritance the Hittites Amorites Canaanites Perezites the Hivites and Jebusites Deut. 20.16 17. How all this is reconciled with that of Eze. the son shal not bear the iniquity of the father is shewed by our Divines that write on the 2d Com. And if God will not admit the infants of believers so much as to bee members of his visible Church or Kingdom then hee should not onely shew more severity to the seed of the wicked then mercy to the seed of the faithful but should even cast out all infants in the world from being in any visible state of Church mercies And how that will stand with the tenderness of his compassions to the godly and their seed and the many promises to them and the enlargement of grace in Gospel times I know not Answ. 1. The speech of Gods proneness to mercy more then severity is according to my apprehension of Gods attributes not right nor however it may pass among the vulgar is it true in exact speech such as should be used in Disputes For though I acknowledge justice vindicative to be natural in God and goodness yet the term of proneness to
to Mr. B. they may be severed And if that which constituteth a visible churchmember be a qualification visible so as that he ought to be esteemed in the judgement of men to belong to the Church of Christ which can be no other then his serious sober free and intelligent profession of the faith of Christ then my description of a visible churchmember is right and infants that have no such qualification are not visible churchmembers To say that their parents are visible professors is insufficient For there is no Scripture that makes the profession of the parent the childs qualification nor any Scripture that for it makes it our duty to esteem him in our judgement to belong to the Church of Christ nor is the paâents profession any qualification of the child visible neither is the relation of the child visible or sensible For relations say Logicians incur not into the sense nor is the Fathers profession any more his own childes profession then any other mans childes profession So that Mr. Bs. own words beeing well heeded overthrow his tenet and confirm mine I go after him in the rest These things saith he explained I proceed and prove my minor thus They that are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved But they that are not so much as seemingly or visibly of the Church they are not so much as seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation Therefore of them so dying we can have no true ground of Christian hope that they shall bee saved Answ. 1. Mr. B. makes here seemingly and visibly in a state of salvation of the Church to be all one whereas there is a great difference seemingly being in order to the understanding visibly to the sense he may be seemingly in the state of salvation and of the Church who is not so visibly there being many arguments which may make a thing seem to the understanding besides that which is discernable by the outward sense Therefore if Mr. B. mean by seemingly all one with visibly as his words import I deny his major as false and to the contrary assert that we may have true ground of Christian hope that they shall be saved who yet die not visibly in a state of salvation that is do not any thing incurrent into the sense which may shew they are in a state of salvation as infants born abortives still-born children dying in the womb natural fools phrenetiques Yea we conceive hopes of the salvation of persons dying raving cursing by reason of their disease destroying themselves dying excommunicate justly from the Church though visibly they are in a state of damnation The minor is also false they that are not visibly of the Church may yet be visibly in a state of salvation as an Indian yet not professing Christ nor baptized being affected with the preaching of Christs love to man so as to lift up his eys to heaven knock his brest listen to the preacher weep kiss the preacher follow him keep company with him c. this man is not yet visibly of the Church yet he is visibly in a state of salvation and so dying we have ground of Christian hope that he shall be saved But Mr. B. tels us The major is evident and confirmed thus 1. Sound Hope is guided by judgement and that judgement must have some evidence to proceed on But where there is not so much as a seeming or visibility there is no evidence and therefore there can be no right judgement and so no grounded hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth still unskilfully put seeming for seemingness and confound it and visibility 2. Where there is no seeming there may be evidence he should rather have said Where there is no seeming there is no judgement for where nothing seems to a person he passeth no judgement or opinion 3. I presume Mr. B. takes evidence largely for any argument which shews a thing and not in that strict sense in which it is denied by learned men that faith hath evidence and in the large sense there may be and is in innumerable things evidence in which is no visibility as that corn will be sown and reaped though we see it not c. And in this present argument Mr. B. himself a little after reckons up many reasons besides visibility of the state of salvation and of the Church which he makes evidence for a judgement upon which there is a grounded hope of infants salvation pâg 77 78. as Gods declarations promises c. And therefore I deny that speech where there is not so much as visibility there is no evidence 2. Saith he Again to judge a thing to be what it doth not any way seem or appear to be is likely actually but alway virtually and interpretatively a false judgement But such a judgement can be no ground for sound hope Answ. Yet a man may truly judge that to be which doth not visibly appear to be 2. Saith he The minor is as evident viz. that they that are not seemingly or visibly of the Church are not seemingly or visibly in a state of salvation For 1. if they that are not of the true Church are not in a state of salvation then they that seem not to be of that Church do not so much as seem to be in a state of salvation But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent The antecedent might be proved from a hundred Texts of Scripture It is the body that Christ is the Saviour of and his people that he redeemeth from their sins and his sheep to whom he giveth eternal life and those that sleep in Jesus that God shall bring with him and the dead in Christ that shall rise to salvation and those that die in the Lord that rest from their labours and the Church that Christ will preserve pure and unspotted c. He that denieth this is scarse to be disputed with as a Christian Even they that thought all should at last be brought out of hell and saved did think they should become the Church and so be saved The consequence is beyond questioning Answ. 1. Seemingly and visibly are still mis confounded by Mr. B. 2. If the antecedent bee meant of the visible Church of which alone the conclusion is to bee then it is denied and the proofs are all impertinent sith they speak not of the visible Church as visible but of the invisible 2. Saith hee I next argue thus If there bee no sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of any out of the Church then there â no sure ground of hope for faith and hope are conjunct wee may not hope with a Christian hope for that wee may not believe But there is no sure ground for such faith they that say there is let them shew it if they can Therefore there is no sure ground of hope Answ. 1. Mr. B. doth ill to
bring to that purpose 7. Saith Mr. B. And why should children be joyned in standing Church ordinances as prayer fasting c. if there were not strong hope of the blessing of these ordinances to them 2 Chron. 20.13 The children that suck the breast were to bee gathered to the solemn fast Joel 2 16. this will prove them also standing Churchmembers seeing they must joyn in standing ordinances so why received they circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith if there were not strong probability that they had the thing sealed and signified God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not Answ. There 's nothing here endeavoured to bee proved but what I have also granted that there is a strong probability that infants of believers so dying are justified and saved and yet I see no strength in these allegations to prove it For though the little ones and sucking children were to bee present to shew an universal humiliation as did the beasts also Jonah 3.8 yet the infants did not joyn in prayer nor was the end of their presence any special blessing of the Ordinance to them but the moving GOD to spare the whole people invaded or in danger of perishing by famiâe nor were the prayer and fasting standing Church-ordinances any more then the Covenanting Deut. â9 Nehem. 9. but occasional nor doth this presenting of infants prove them standing Church-members any more then the like Jonah 3.8 proves those infants or the Ninivites beasts standing Churchmembers As for Cirâumcision that infants received Circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith is no where in Scripture affirmed and how much Paedobaptists are mistaken in their inference of the nature of Sacraments in general or Circumcâsiân in special from Rom 4.11 hath beene often shewed before Sect. 31 c. The ends of Circumcising of infants was to distinguish the Hebrews from other people and to fore-signifie from what people CHRIST was to come and to engage them to observe the Law of Moses which they were to receive by reason of Gods command whether they hoped for their childrens salvation or not Abraham was to circumcise Ishmael though hee knew hee was not a childe of the promise and Isaac Esau though hee were rejected by God The speech God will not fail his own ordinance where men fail not is like the Popish Schoolmens conceit that Sacraments confer grace where no bar is put and intimates that Circumcision was Gods oâdinance to assure at least rigteousness of faith to each infant circumcised which is a false conceit 8. Saith Mr. B. Why else doth God so oft compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe 1 Thes. 2.7 Num. 11 12. Isa. 49.15 Psâl 103.13 Answ. Though I grant a strong probality of the salvation of believers infants so dying yet to shew the vanity of Mr. Bs. scriblings as if hee brought more for it then I do I cannot but observe the slighty dealing of Mr. B. in this point For first whereas hee alledgeth these texts as if GOD did therein compare his love to that of a mother or father to the childe in the first Paul not God compares himself to a nurse in the second Moses speaks of himself as if God had put an impossible burthen on him as if he could as a nursing father bears his sucking childe carry all that people to the promised land In the third God saith he would not forget Sion who had said hee had forgotten them though a mother should forget her sucking childe and Psal. 103.13 the love of God as a father is spoken of them that fear him So that the two first texts were through heedlesness mis-alledged grosly by him the other two express Gods love onely to his obedient and seeking people mention nothing of his love to their infants 2. God doth compare his love to a Fathers or Mothers not because he is engaged to believers infants to save them nor because he hath natural affection as they have but to shew his gracious care and dealing towards his elect children 3. Gods love is no more compâred to a believing parents love then to an unbelievers and therefore if this prove a strong probability of the salvation of a believers infant so dying it doth prove the salvation of an unbelievers as probâble 4. Gods love and care is compared to an Eagles in carrying her young ones Deut. 32.11 12. Christs to an Heâ Matth. 23.37 According to Mr. Bs. reasoning thiâ should prove then the strong probability of tâe salvation of Chickens But I am ashamed that the world should see the nakedness of these magnified reasonings though I be necessitated to uncover it The 9th from Matth. 19.14 is no more then I have alledged often for those infants and what Mr. B. here alledgeth to prove this a right of other infants is answered at large in the second part of this Review sect 17. 10. Saith he We read of some that have been sanctified from the womb and therefore were in a state of salvation and Jacob was loved before he was born and therefore before he had done good or evil was in the like state of salvation Answ. Have not I also granted this thing and that upon the same reasons Why then doth Mr. B. suggest to draw parâ is hearts from me to him as if he said more in this then my self Yet I cannot be very confident of the reason from Jerem 1.15 to which Gal. 1. â5 is parallel sith the sanctification was to the office of a Prophet which is appliable to infants so dying 11. We find promises of salvation to whole housholds where it is probable there were infants Act. 16.34 Answ. 1. Acts 16.31 is no probability that infants should bee meant sith in the next v. it is said he spake the word to all that were in his house which is not to be said of infants and v. 34. he rejoyced with all his house believing God 2. If they should yet this can be no more then a particular promise to him unless this were true that God will save every believer and his house And Mr. B. over lâsheth in saying we find promises of salvation made to whole housholds when there is no more but this one The 12th is from 1 Cor. 7.14 and it is built on Mr. Bs. interpretation of holy as if it noted a separation to God as a peculiar people But I have fully answered Mr Bs. 29th ch and have shewed his mistake in the first part of this Review sect 22 c. and need to answer no more in this place Mr. B. goes on thus It cannot be said that these promises are verified according to their sense if any mercy be given to any infant Here the persons are determined that is all the seed of the faithfull and we have large ground given probably to conclude that it is eternal mercy that is intended to all that living to age do not again reject it but that either at
glory and beauty in the ordinances of the new Testament Yet first some of them as the preaching of the Gospel which is the most glorious those that are out of the visible Church may partake of and those whâch Mr. Bl. counts within may not partake of I mean infants and some others Secondly that fatness which is meant Rom. 11.17 passeth from the root to the tree and thence to the branches and therefore he that is said to bee partaker of the fatness of the olive tree is first said to bee partaker of the root but be the root Abraham or as Mr. Bl. would have it Isaac and Jacob with him ordinances pass not from them It is true Circumcision was first begun in Abraham but all the rest of the Jewish ordinances are according to Scripture rather derived from Moses then Abraham and to say they were partakers of the root that is of Circumcision which was the onely ordinance Abraham Isaac and Jacob did partake of is both false for they were not circumcised and being so empty a thing as that it 's termed with all the Jewish ordinances a shadow Col. 2.17 Heb. 10.1 it had no glory then at all And for Baptism the Lords Supper c. they passed not from Abraham Isaac and Jacob nor were they partakers of them but were instituted by Christ in the New Testament Thirdly the partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree was by the ingraffing and consequent of it But the ingraffing according to Mr. Bl. doth not make them partakers of outward ordinances For the chief of ordinances to wit the preaching of the Gospel was the instrument of their ingraffing as his own allegation shewes pag. 278. from Acts 11.21 and so was antecedent to the ingraffing nor by the ingraffing were they partakers of the other outward ordinances For though the heart were wrought to a professed subjection to the way of God in ordinances which is Mr. Bls. ingraffing and so ingraffed Yet they might bee never partakers of outward ordinances such as Baptism and the Lords Supper if either sickness or death prevented the administration or want of an administratour or the elements c. hindered Fourthly the fatness of the olive tree makes the partakers fresh and fruitful But that is not outward ordinances but the spirit of God righteousness by faith c. of which I shall speak more in vindicating my fourth argument Mr. Bl. saith farther That the holiness Rom. 11.16 is such as is communicable from parent to childe that is necessarily communicated as a root communicates to branches This is so plain that if it be denied all the Apostles dispute falls Answ. It is true that if the holiness bee not communicated from Abraham to all his children by faith who are believers as he was the Apostles dispute fals but the Apostles dispute holds though it bee not communicated to every childe of every believing father which is Mr. Bls. conceit as his following words shew Yea hence is a good argument to prove the holiness not to bee meant of meer visible Church-membership nor the root of every parent professing faith because many of their children are never Christian visible Churchmembers as experience abundantly proves and so have not this holiness communicated to them Yea Mr. Bl. saith who knowes not that holy fathers have unholy children regenerate parents have issue unregenerate I may add abortives natural fools still-born bred up in Mahometanism renegado's unbaptised excommunicated and consequently not visible Churchmembers or federally holy And it is most false in this holiness of visible Churchmembership or as Mr. Bl. cals it federal that the proposition holds as is the Father so is the childe the Father being without the childe is without the Father being within the childe is within in regard of Church estate Covenant holiness eo nomine because a branch of such a root a childe of such a Father which Mr. Bl. dictates here but proves not and hath been often refuted by me nor is there any thing in Rom. 11.16 for it Yea Mr. Bls. own interpretation overthrowes this position For if the root bee as his position is Abraham Isaac and Jacob then it is not every believing Father and if the root bee every believing Father then all the branches of the tree are natural and they derive their holiness by descent of nature whereas it is plain from the text and Mr. Bls. fourth position is to the same purpose that the Jews onely are natural branches the Gentiles are all ingraffed branches Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham in his exercit ch 8. takes upon him to demonstrate holiness and Churchmembership of the children of believing Gentiles from Rom. 11.15 16 17. and to answer my arguments ch 9. Against my opinion of the ingraffing into the invisible Church he urgeth then persons may be broken off from the invisible Church and takes notice of my answer in my Examen p. 64. but saith nothing to my answer in my Apology p. 76. though he could not but know of it taking on him to answer my arguments in the next pages before The rest he brings is from Mr. B. and is answered by me in my Review part 1. sect 6. c. I agree with him in the position that Abraham is the root meant Rom 11.16 and that he is a root exemplary onely nor do I deny that the Apostles arguing is from a special prerogative to Abraham to whom the promise was given Gen. 17.7 and that the promise did comprehend the elect of his natural seed and that God had a more special regard to his natural seed in that promise then to other menâ natural seed yet not universally to his seed nor is it true that the Apostle makes the branches holy Rom. 11.16 by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed which is the same in the New Testament and the Old as hee urgeth out of Dr Willet For there is not that promise in the New Testament or old And therefore the Argument upon this conceit can have no strength in it Pag. 71. he layes down this position Wee believing Gentiles are ingraffed into Abrahams Covenant in the room of the natural branches which were broken off Concerning which I say that though I deny not the believing Gentiles to have interest in Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17.7 that is God is their God and they have righteousness by faith as Abraham had yet the Apostle doth not speak of their ingraffing into Abrahams Covenant that âs Mr. Sidenhams mistake but into the olive tree that is as Mr. Bl. the whole body of the Church which he would have meant of the visible I of the invisible Now to Mr. Sidenhams arguments to that position I yeeld the conclusion of the first that believing Gentiles and their children are graffed in but not all or any as their children and that the ingraffing is sutable to the breaking off that is that as the Jewes and their
from a vine or olive Answ. 1. They may be said to be broken off who were never taken in in their own persons sure the abortives and stil-born were never taken into the visible Church of the Jews and yet if other infants were broken off so were they and if they were broken off though they were never taken in in their own persons but their ancestors then the infants of infidel Edomites might be said to be broken off who were in Esau Isaac and Abraham taken in But they were not positive unbelievers therefore other then positive unbelievers are broken off which opposeth Mr. B. 2. If infants of infidel Edomites be not broken off then according to Mr. B. the ordinance of visible Churchmembership is not in respect of them revoked and repealed and consequently they are visible Churchmembers according to the tenour of Mr. Bs. arguing 3. If God will not punish the children for the fathers sins as Mr. B. saiâh much less for a strangers then he would not break off the unbelieving Jews infant children then they are visible Churchmembers if Mr. Bs. arg hold 4. Mr. Bls. reason is answered before by shewing how there may be privations of habits not in being And if his reason were good and unbelieving Jews infant could not be broken off for that it was never in the visible Church Christian and is the branch of a bramble To my words that the breaking off is not revoking of an ordinance about visible churchmembership but the execution of the decree of reprobation in excluding them from the invisible Church M. Bl. replies 1. By demand Is there any such decree as to cast out of the Church invisible I am sure that chapter hath no such thing Answ. There is a decree of breaking off from the Church invisible and that decree is plainly exprest in that chapter v. 7 8 9 10. For what comes to pass in time that God decrees But they were broken off in time from the invisible Church of believers v. 7 8 9 10 15 17 19 22. 2 ly Saith he I demand did they continue in the Church visible when upon execution of such a decree they were cast out of the Church invisible or was their station in the visible Church lost and that of the invisible Church never gained and therefore they were not broken off from it Answ. They continued in the visible Church Jewish in opposition to the visible Church Christian which they persecuted when they were cast away and broken off from the Church invisible of true believers according to Gods decree of reprobation though they never gained a station in the invisible Church in their own persons Mr. Bl. adds 3 ly The Jews adhering to circumcision c. though God changed the rites Moses gave them refused the way of God rejected the counsel of God in not being baptised doting upon elements beggerly and so their eys are held that they see nothing into glorious Gospel mysteries And this their unbelief is their breaking off from that visible Church station in which they sometimes stood upon which account they are kept out from interest in the Church invisible And when this blindness shall be removed they shall then be saved Answ. Their unbelief was the means of their breaking off but not of their breaking off from that visible Church-station in which they sometimes stood the visible Church-station in which they stood is as Mr. Bl. himself describes it their station in the Jewish Church visible in the way of Church ordinances Circumcision Sacrifices c. changed by God yet as he himself faith the Jews stuck thereto and therefore stood still in their former visible Church-station Besides their unbelief was not their breaking off from it For 1. as Mr. Bl. said before the breaking off was Gods act so was not their unbelief 2. According to Mr. Bl. breaking off was Gods act of punishment but it was no punishment but a merâ to be broken off from that visible Church station Nor upon the account of their breaking off from that visible Church station in which they sometimes stood were they kept out from interest in the Church invisible but for their unbelief and their keeping that Church station However if they were kept out from interest in the Church invisible their breaking off is more then depriving of a visible Churchstate yâa the same which I assert a breaking off from the invisible Church If there be any mazes in my 8th and 9th sections of the first part of my Review Mr. B. led me into them whom I was necessitated to follow Mr. Bs. arguments are answered without confusion and with so much strength as neither Mr. Bl. nor Mr. B. are able to refute Mr. Bl. asserts contrary to me that the Christian visible Church and the Jewish are one and the same 1. because Japhet dwels in Shems Tents which are the Church visible and this he saith needs no proof But I require proof that by Shems tents are meant Gen. 9.27 the visible Church Jewish or Christian. 2. Because they are one sheep-fold Joh. 10.16 and to the objection that it 's meant of the invisible Church because Christ gives notes of those that were indeed his sheep he saith Christ speaks to those that were Disciples onely according to profession and gives notes Joh. 8.31 of Disciples indeed and it is against all reason that Christ should in discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative This and that to those that were malignant enough in the Church visible the Pharisees as appears in the close of the former Chapter And the mention of thieves creeping into it hirelings employed in it doth contradict it The visible Church of the Jews and Gentiles in which Christ hath true sheep for whom he dies and others that thieves and hirelings do deceive makes up one sheep-fold Answ. The Text rather proves the contrary as Mr. Bl. expounds it For if the fold be the visible Church and the other sheep are not of that visible Church then there is not one fold or Church of Jews and Gentiles but some sheep are of one fold or visible Church and some of another As for Mr. Bls. arguments they are of no force For Christ might well enough in his discourse point out the invisible Church with the demonstrative this it being usual to point out invisible things by it as Joh. 6.29 c. This God is our God And yet I do not think this fold John 10.16 notes the invisible Church but the people or nation of the Jews as Piscator Grotius c. expound it or rather the place For the fold ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã notes not the sheep and therefore not the Church but the place or country where or whence they are Nor were deceivers hirelings thieves or wolves in or of the Church meant Joh. 10.15 16. though they might get into the place and company of them Nor is it truly translated by our Translatours there shall be one fold
there is no fear of non-federation of their issue the minor is thus expresly after Mr Bls. minde But the unbelieving fornicatrix is sanctified by the faith of the believing fornicator so as that there is no fear of non-federation of their issue Ergo they may live together according to Mr. Bl. and consequently Mr. Bl. blasphemously by his exposition makes the Apostle justifie the living together of a believer with an unbeliever in fornication which is enough to shew the falshood of that exposition yea and of any other which ascribes the sanctifiedâess v. 14. which is the reason of their lawful living together v. 12 13. to the faith of the one party and not to the conjugal relation The rest of Mr. Bls. talk of my willingness to have him waste his time his falling on my sapless tree the readiness of his axe his pains in applying it is vain and frivolous talk sith the tree still stands after all his hacking and hewing at it and his axe appears to bee very blunt or else he strikes besides the tree As for my sixe years space Mr. Bl. might have understood that the reason of my not publishing the first part of my Review till 1652. six years after the printing of Apology was besides my constant labours and extraordinary publike and private employments from the necessity of my removing my dwelling from the Temple to Bewdley from Bewley to Ledbury thence to Lemster besides my frequent flittings by reason of the wars travels to regain my plundered goods difficulty to get my treatise printed the variety of Antagonists I had to answer which is yet the reason of my slowness in publishing this part of the Review and comes from the venemous spirit of such as Mr. Bl. Mr. B. and other Paedobaptists who would never comply with me in the fair motion in the Epilogue of my Examen to joyn together in a brotherly way of ventilating the point but what they can bait me with calumnies tending to discredit me as covetous arrogant c. with multitude of replies and magnifying them though frivolous vilifying my writings that men might not reade them and discern the truth nor Book-sellers be willing to print or sell them stirring up Parliaments and Rulers to remove those of our way out of all places which have publike salary that our hands may be weakned which I may truly call wicked practises of which too many of them have been guilty and for which God will judge them I go on Mr. Bl. sect 6. to my argument against his instrumental sanctification that barren persons cannot be said to be instrumentally sanctified for producing an holy seed pressed by me in the 1. part of this Review p. 150 151. sect 19 saith thus And I will 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 others in the same condition of marriage are childless or unable to bring forth children Whether the seed which came of those marriages Ezra 10. were not unclean notwithstanding many so married had no children Many of the Priests had herein transgrest and it was but some of them had wives by whom they had children Ezra 10.44 All which I grant but there is not a jot in all this which answers my objection that the barren by accident or nature could not bee said to bee sanctified to produce an holy seed and yet the reason of the Apostle must bee conceived to reach to the proof of the lawfulness of their living together in disparity of religion as well as the fruitful and therefore the sanctifying must be expounded in another sense then Mr. Bls. which agrees not to their case But hee adds And because this is the medium for proof of the Apostles determination v. 1â that they might live together pag. 152. hee will have it to be from a future contingent but when this is no medium for proof of the Apostles determination as hath been sufficiently shâwn it is not this fals with the other Answ. That it hath been sufficiently shewn that the first part of v. 14. is not a medium for proof of the Apostles determination is said without any colour of truth All the reason I finde given is v. 16. is not a formal reason ergo neither v. 14. to which answer hath been given by denying both the antecedent and the consequence it is a formal reason though not âs Mr. Bl. frames it and if it were not yet the term for else but now being argumentative terms shew there is formal reasoning v. 14. v. 14. and the producing an holy seed being a contingent event if the Apostle should as Mr. Bls. exposition makes him prove their lawful living together because the unbeliever is sanctified instrumentally to produce an holy seed hee should argue from an uncertain event which Chamier tom 4. paustr. Cath. lib. 5. chap. 10. sect 46. disapproved in another case as I shew in my Examen pag. 7â To my argument against instrumental sanctiââcation that it cannot be meant oâ it sith the barren cannot bee said to bee Gods instrument âor that always effects and when God sanctifies hee specially designes some whereas this is common to all husbands and wives and the unbeliever is said to bee sanctified whereas it is the believer according to them who is the instrument of producing a holy seed Mr. Bl. saith I am sure they bring âorth 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 who 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 Bee fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth All believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed it being of his free grace that the promise is to them and their seed Answ. What is said Ezek. 16.20 was said onely of Israelites and those manifest idolaters as well as true believers and the words do import no more but this that the Israelites children were born of right to him that is to be at his disposal for his service Levit. 25.42 because hee brought them out of Egypt and therefore it was unjust in them to alienate them from him by offering them to idols which is not to be said of the Corinthian believers children Matth. 23.9 is as impertinently alledged for it speaks not of Gods being a Father in respect of natural generation nor forbids calling any man a father in that respect but in that manner in which the Jews termed their teachers fathers and themselvâs their children in respect of absolute subjection of their consciences to their dictates as Diodati rightly in his annot This teacheth the believers not to yeeld that absolute reverence nor power over their consciences to any living man which
a sufficient reason for infant baptism as will be shewed in the sequel The first thing I except against this Exposition that when it is said Gen. 12.2 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã he takes it for granted it is to bee understood actively as if the meaning were that Abraham should be a blessing to others whereas as Pareus in his Com saith it may be an amplification of the things going before thou shalt bee altogether and very blessed in which sense we use often the abstract for the contract as a man very honest is called honesty Yea the LXX render it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and thou shalt be blessed Piscat schol Vel esto in benedictionâ hoc est benedictus Diodati annot Blessed every way as if all blessings were gathered together in thee or a pattern of a compleat blessing 2. That he takes iâ as iâ what is said must bee applicable to all believers that they shall be blessings in their generations But this is not proved from the text which onely speaks of Abraham being a blessing and though it is true Heb. 6.14 the promise of blessâng to Abraham is made a promise of which all believers are heyrs v. 17. yet is it plain from many passages in that Chapter v 9 11 12 15 18 19. that it is meant that they are heirs of the promise of blessing to themselves in enjoying salvation as Abraham did not of imparting blessing to others 3. That he takes it as if it must follow that if Abraham were a blessing to others it must bee in that spiritual blessings according to election were in some proportion entailed to the postârity and neighbourhood of all true believers But Pareus thus Some expound it actively thou shalt be a blessing that is thou shalt bless others my blessing shall not bee shut up in thee alone but out of thee it shall flow also to others Blessing shall so stick in thee wheresoever thou comest that by thy ministry others may also come to a blessing Nor do the exposition of some Hebrews seem to bee refused that Abraham shall be a publike example of all sort of blessing in the world so that all that wish well to themselves or oâhers may wish for the happiness of Abraham Or as the new annot in Gen. 12.2 shalt be a blessing That is more then thou shalt have a blessing for in this blessing is virtually comprised the happiness of both worlds and of all that are truely blessed in all ages whereof though God be the onely Author Abraham is honoured to bee a principal means under him to bring it to pass in being the progenitour of the promised seed and setting such an example of beliefe as might qualifie him to be stiled father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 12. The world shall receive by thy seed which is Christ the blessing which it lost in Adam Mr. C. himselfe denies not to bee included in this promise that of Abraham and his seed the Lord CHRIST should come but saith if it bee restrained onely to this then it will follow that all those of the Line of CHRIST were blessings to the World as well as hee To which I reply 1. if the sense given be included as he grants then his sense is not necessary nor can any thing be proved by it 2. Though the speech in the sense given bee restrained yet the absurdity followes not sith the being a blessing by begetting Christ is not so invested in any as in Abraham who is made the first Trustee as it were of this blessing by the Covenant or Charter granted to him 4. I except that in the promise In thee or in thy seed shall all the families or Nations of the earth bee blessed Mr. Carter conceives thee and thy seed to comprehend every believer Whereas the Apostle expounds Acts 3.25 in thy seed of Christ onely and in thee Galath 3.8 9. of Abraham onely with whom as the pattern oâ believing and beeing blessed they which bee of the faith are blessed I deny not that by Abrahams seed believers are meant Gen. 17.7 and Gen. 15.5 and that the Apostle Rom. 4.18 Gal. 3.29 and elsewhere so expounds it But no where do I finde the promises Gen. 1â 3 18.18 22.18 expounded so as that in thy seed should noâe every believer and the sense in which Mr. Carter takes it as if in every believer all the families of the earth should bee blessed it is derogatory from Abrahams peculiar priviledge one way understood another from Christs and not much short of blasphemy 5. That hee makes families and nations of the earth to bee different in the promises mentioned as appears by his words and that chiefly and in the first place to their families and not onely so but also to nations whereas the holy Ghost makes no such difference For as the same promise which is expressed by families Gen. 12.3 is expressed by nations Gen. 18.18 so in the new Testament the promise Gen. 12.3 where the word is rendred families is expressed Gal. 3.8 by nations and the term which is Gen. 22.18 all the nations of the earth is Acts 3.25 all the kindreds or families of the earth as Mr. C. would have it 6. Mr. C. seems by families to whom believers should be a blessing children as when hee saith God will ordinarily cast children elect upon elect parents and by nations neighbourhoods as when hee saith the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together whereas families in the Hebrew ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã whether rendred by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as the LXX Gen. 12.3 that is tribes or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Acts 3.25 notes more then posterity or housholds even whole tribes and kinreds that draw their line from one great Ancestour and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã notes a whole people of one language though in their dwellings so remote as to have no entercourse one with another I will not trouble my self to enquire what difference there is between the words in Hebrew and Greek which are translated families tribes kindreds nations This I am sure they contain greater and more ample numbers of men then those who live together under one roof or one town and if from thence the extent of the Covenant be inferred to posterity of believers and their neighbours and so the seal of the Covenant as Mr. C. doth because believers are promised to bee a blessing to posterity and neighbours it will follow from the termes families and nations that they are blessings to whole parishes townes cities and nations and they are to be baptised and parochial city national Churches to bee set up again against which Mr. C. with his brethren have so much hitherto contended 7. By Mr. Cs. exposition whereas the promises are that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in a believer this is brought to so narrow a compass as that it is restrained to posterity and neighbourhood 8. The manner how in believers their posterity
is said to be blessed and he a blessing to them is expressed to be in that God casts elect children upon elect paients which I know not well how to understand It seems to bear a sense if not the same yet very near that in which we are said to be chosen in Christ Ephes. 1.3 4. which Mr. C. alledgeth to this purpose and 1 Cor. 1.30 We are of God in him who is made to us of God wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption which were near blasphemy Which to avoid it concerned Mr. C. to have more clearly and distinctly expressed himself What he saith that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 12.2 3. respecteth families and posteritie else he had said all the believers or all the people of the earth not all the families of the earth shall bee blessed shews his oversight in not observing that it is Gal. 3.8 all the nations of the earth which is equivalent to all the people of the earth and yet v. 9. by all the nations of the earth are meant no more then they that are of faith And when he saith that the Apostle Acts 3.25 could not have said to the Jewes ye are the children of the Covenant had it not respected the children of the people of God hee heeded not that they are said as well to bee children of the Prophets and therefore the sense is not that they were descended from the Covenant or Prophets by natural generation but ye are they to whose Ancestours the Covenant was at first given and the Prophets sent which are not common things to all the children of the people of God or true believers the Gentile believers children are not children of the Covenant and Prophets in the sense there meant but proper to the Jews Nor is the proposition true which Mr. C. would gather from the Covenant to Abraham For 1. God hath plainly discovered his mind Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 24 25. that he chuseth at his pleasure children of unbelievers as well as believers and of the posterity of believers either none or which he will arbitrarily and by no ordinary or certain rule but as a potter doth with his clay acâording to his soveraignty not out of special grace to the children of his elect for the parents sake and accordingly the saints praise him for their redemption out of every kinred and tongue and people and nation Rev. 5.9 without respect to their Ancestours 2. Our Lord Christ foretold Matt 10.34 35. that he came to divide a man against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law and a mans enemies should be they of his own house And in the families of the most godly how few were found elect may appear by the posterity of David Josiah Jehoshaphat âli Samuel Abraham himself with many more As for our own experience in our own times it is so uncertain that no good estimate can be made thereupon concerning Gods ordinary way Perhaps in some families it falls out that the posterity and neighbours and servants are godly but many complaints of degenerating of back-sliding shew it as often to be otherwise I wish it were true which Mr. C. writes though I find no proof of it That in all ages God hath cast it so in his providence that his people are not to be found in all places alike but we finde them together in some families and nations Now this is not faln out by chance but because God hath so made his choise hath been a God to believers and their seed in their generation and hath made them blessings for the conversion and edification of their children neighbours and acquaintance and that not onely by a common providence as he blesseth the corn and grass of the field but it is by vertue of a special word of blessing a creating word of promise which giveth a being to the things promised even this promise made to Abraham and in him to all believers Gen. 12 2 3. without which good examples and other means of education and conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God But I do not believe it sith neither hath the Covenant such a sense as Mr. C. gives it nor is there such eâperience proved and it is found that what good is done among children of believing parents is done as often by servants minister good company remarkable providences and other wayes as by parents endeavours and if without such a promise as Mr. C. imagines such means had not such efficacy I think not onely parents who believe no such promise but also ministers and others who expect a blessing upon their endeavours without Mr. Cs. promise would be discouraged in their work That which is said Psal. 105.8 though it prove the perpetuity of Gods Covenant with Abraham yet proves not the sense Mr. C. gives of the Covenant Nor doth that Luk. 19.9 yeeld any clearness to iâ For salvation came to Zacheus his house in respect of his person and if it did to others in his house yet it is not said by vertue of the Covenant to Abraham as Mr. C. imagines and what Mr. C. saith about Acts 16.31 that it was spoken because of this promise to Abraham is his own gloss without any hint from the text and would infer this proposition that by vertue of Gods promise to Abraham upon the faith of an house-keeper his house should be saved which is contrary to constant experience of believing masters husbands parents having unbelieving servants wives children I grant Abraham to be the holy root Rom. 11.16 and that v. 28. the Jewes as touching the election are beloved for the Fathers sake and that they shall be graffed in again because the guâât once given to them God will not repent of and though I say not the Church bringeth forth children to Abraham yet I yeeld Jerusalem which is above the Evangelical Covenant doth and that the children of promise or of the free-woman are Abrahams seed all believers even of the Gentiles but this is so far from proving the blessing upon families and kinreds and Gods ordering in such manner his election as Mr. C. devised and would have perpetual from Psal. 105.8 that it rather proves the contrary For the breaking off the Jews and the ingraffing the Gentiles not of the families or kinred of the root Abraham but a wild Olive by nature proves the blessing not to be to families nor election so ordered as that to a thousand generations to all generations even to the worlds ând God ordinarily casts elect children upon elect parents Nor doth the citing of Isa. 59.20 which is Rom. 11.26 27. with the inference thereupon prove that God entails his blessing upon families from generation to generation but that God hath such a special love to the family of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that after a long breaking off that nation shall be restored again
and re-ingraffed for the Fathers sake which is there made the peculiar priviledge of Israel after the flesh But there is not a word in the Apostle Rom. 11. that shews that priviledge to have been enjoyed by believing Gentiles since their being graffed into the same root and Olive tree from whence the Jews were broken off Nor is it true For God hath removed his Candlestick from many places where there were famous Churches aâd from many kindreds families and people where there were formerly godly company and society so that now the progeny are become profane and Apostates and the Churches replenished with plants out of families in which a little while since Popery profaneness and viciousness did abound Noâ do 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.38 make any thing for Mr. Cs. purpose as shall appear in the sequel Nor doth the application of Circumcisâon to the child or Abrahams title of Father of all them that believe prove the Covenant with Abraham in Mr. Cs. sense Nor is it true the application of Circumcision to the child is a necessary and essential part of that Ordinance For that is not an essential part of an Ordinaâce without which it might be But the Ordinance of Circumcision might be and perhaps was at first without application to a child if thereby be meant an infant however if none but parents were circumcised as when the Circumcision was Josh. 5. it had been the Ordinance of Circumcision nevertheless when onely one proselyte aâ age was circumcised it was the Ordinance Ergo. As for what Mr. C. answers to the objection from experience it is indeed a pulling down of what he had spent so much time to build up For if Gods blessing do not take effect through mens sin or defect of using means then the promise is not to families and kindreds in that absolute manner Mr. C. before described it then the promise is to the quality and diligence of the persons not to the relation then is the promise as well to any other so qualified and diligent as to the parent then is it false which he said before pag. 38. that the success was not from example and other means but a special word of blessing the promise to Abraham Finally if that be true which he hath pag. 35. which is false printed G 2. that although Gods promise be to carry his election so as to cast elect children upon elect parents yet he reserveth to himself and also useth in this a liberty namely ever and anon to be still breaking of ãâ¦ã graffing in others into this holy root then what he said before p. 7. F 3. that God hath thus far limited himself and discovered his mind and purpose that he will ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents is false For what God reserveth to himself and useth a liberty in he hath not limited himself so far and if he ever and anon useth this liberty to be still breaking ofâ some and graffing in others then he doth not ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents for what is otherwise ever and anon and still is not so ordinarily much less still in being to a thousand generations to all generations even to the worlds end as he said pag. 33. G. So that Mr. Cs. discourse from his own words is found hitherto to contain mistakes uncertainty and in the main inconsistency with it self Let 's view whether in the rest there be any thing worthy of a Lord Mayors imprimatur A third thing Mr. C. observes as contained in the Lords promise unto Abraham is That by thus blessing and making believers blessings God would multiply his seed Gen. 22.16 So Gen. 17.2 5. That this is part of the Gospel and contained in the promise made to him and us is proved from Heb. 6.14 A further proof we have Gen. 15.5 alledged Rom. 4.3 18 22. as belonging to believing Gentiles the increase of whose number by means of Gods blessing believers so as to make them blessings as Abrahams seed was intended in that promise and as part of that Gospel which God preached unto Abraham There 's a promise that the Kingdome of Christ shall fill the world Dan. 2.35 44. To this purpose is that of our Saviour Matth. 13.31 32 33. Now the Lords making believers blessings and thereby multiplying Abrahams seed is that which makes his Kingdome thus to be like leaven whereby the whole world at last will be seasoned with the knowledge and love of Christ. Therefore this multiplying of believers so as to fill the world is made by the Apostle Rom. 4.13 to be part of Abrahams promise then mark what follows v. 16 17 18. This promise was made sure to all believers as well Gentiles as Jews Answ. 1. Why Mr. C. makes that the 3d. thing in Gods promise Gen. 22.17 18. which is the 2d and puts that as the 2d thing which is after the rest v. 18. and so the 4th I see no reason but onely that he foresaw that otherwise there had been no colour for this which he here infers that by thus blessing and making believers blessings God would multiply his seed Gen. 22.16 But the right order of the promises shews this conceit to be only Mr. Cs. fancy For in that the promise v. 18. is put last it is shewed thereby that it is a distinct promise and that it doth not express the manner how God would multiply Abrahams seed as Mr. C. conceives 2. It is true Gen. 15.5 is a Gospel promise to believing Gentiles Rom. 4.18 but not in Mr. Cs. sense that the increase of the number of believing Gentiles should be by means of Gods blessing believers so as to make them blessings as Abrahams seed in that God would cast ordinarily elect children oâ elect parents and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together But in this sense that Abraham should have an innumerable company of children or his seed among the Gentiles by faith who should be faithfullââraham ââraham Gal. 3.9 in their own persons but no mention is there of their being a blessing to others 3. That the Church of Christ should fill the world Dan. 2.35 44. that the Kingdome of Heaven as a grain of mustard seed or leaven Matth. 13.31 32 33. shall fill or season the world is granted but that it is meant in those places to be done in Mr. Cs. way is denied I do conceive it to have been meant of the Apostles preaching as me thinks Christs words Matth. 24.14 do import 4 That the promise of being heir of the world was to Abraham and his seed believing Gentiles is granted but that his or their being heir of the world did import any such blessing as Mr. C. imagines as if God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents or that any such thing is intimated by the Apostle v. 16 17 18. is denied Nor do I yet find any interpreter afore Mr. C. who hath so expounded the promâse In the opening of the 4th
remembred his Covenant for ever the word which hee commanded to a thousand generations But first The word is not meant of the command of a seal to bee applied to infants but of his own promise which hee will have firme as his Command Psalm 133.3 42.8 44.4 as the New Annotat and Piscat on the place which also appears from the words following which terme it Gods Covenant hee made with Abraham and his oath unto Isaac which is expressed vers 11. which cannot be understood of his Command to us what we should do but his promise of what hee himself will do Secondly the word commanded signifieth Gods decree within himself Or as Diodati in his note on the place Hee commanded which hee appointed by his soveraign and irrevocable decree as the word commanded is used Psalm 133.3 and elsewhere Thirdly To a thousand generations notes not just so many But as Piscator in his scholiâ on the place it is by a synecdoche of the kinde as if it were said unto many ages And this must needs bee granted sith the Covenant however it bee granted to imply in the latent sense the promise of the heavenly inheritance yet in the patent sense must bee understood as v. 11.44 compared shew of the earthly Canaan which they had not a thousand generations but for many ages as Exod. 20.6 To thousand generations is meant not precisely so many and no more but a long time indefinite beyond three or four generations and thus must also bee understood the promise of the land of Canaan to bee for ever to be an everlasting possession that is for a long time as frequently it is used Exod. 21.6 Exod. 40.15 1 Sam. 2.35 Levit. 23.14 21 31 41 c. What hee saith of Baptism being the same for substance and equivalent to Circumcision unless hee mean it that infant Baptism and infant Circumcision are one equivalent to the other and the same for substance in this sense they are of no force not obliging Christians nor benefiting them it will be found in examining that which follows to have no truth Mr. C. adds And that this blessing upon families and posterity was signified held forth and sealed by circumcising the child appeareth further by that promise uttered in that phrase Deut. 30.6 which kind of expression intimates that the promise of the conversion of their children was held forth and confirmed in that seal As when the Apostle saith wee are baptized into one body is signified and sealed in Baptism our union with Christ in one body because else those words had been in no capacity to have been so used in that sense as they are used both by the Apostle and by Moses Answ. 1. The phrase of circumcising the heart Deut. 30 6 being used to express conversion or change of the heart doth shew indeed that there is some resemblance between them yet that it is so by institution is not proved no more then because by breaking up our fallow ground together with circumcising the same thing is siânified Jer. 4.3 4. and by washing Isa. 1.16 therefore plowing and washing are by institution to bee used to that end 2. But be it granted that Circumcision was instituted to signifie the chânge of the heart as baptism our union with Christ in one body yet this proves not that it was to signifie and seal a promise of something future but rather what was already done For if it signifie as Baptism then it signifies conversion already effected Baptism being a sign that the person was united to Christ and to all his members by one spirit as the very terms 1 Cor. 12.13 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã wee have been baptised ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we have been drencht shew And though the words Deut. 30.6 are a promise yet the term circumcise of it self and in like manner the use of circumcision according to the institution may as well note a thing done as a thing promised to bee done 3. Nevertheless let it bee granted that circumcision did in the institution of it note conversion of the heart and signified a promise of it as being a token of the Covenant in which that was covertly promised yet this proves not that it held forth a blessing upon families and posterity For there is no mention Deut. 30.6 of families though there be of posterity and that mention which is of posterity is of them not in their infant but adult estate and upon condition of the childs returning to God and obeying his voice as well as the parents as Mr. Baxter rightly observes in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. I may add that the promise there is expressed onely concerning one case to wit repentance in captivity v. 1 2.3 4. and the promise as appears from v. 5. is a promise peculiar to the Israelites 4. But were this further granted that thence might be proved that circumcision by institution signified the promise of conversion of posterity and that this were to Gentile believers yet this is nor that which Mr. C. would evince that the application of the seal to infants in that it was to infants sealed this promise or that the promise was sealed in Mr. Cs. sense so as that God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents and make parents a blessing so as that Abrahams seed by faith should be multiplied in families and nations by them What Mr. C. adds That the sign had not held proportion with the thing signified namely there had been nothing in the sign to signifie and seal that blessing upon posterity had the application of it to infants been left out is but a vain dictate For 1. if the sign held similitude with the thing signified though it held not proportion so as to be applied to all whose conversion was signified it might serve for the use of a sign as a conveyance to a Father may assure the childs interest and therefore that which Mr. C. dictates that for this reason infants were to be circumcised to seal that promise of believers being a blessing added to Adams Covenant is a vain conceit without proof sith it might have been as well assured if the parents had been circumcised onely as well as when the male infants onely were circumcised And that which he saith further is most false and vain Nor indeed had there been any use of the application of it to the infant nor that made a part of the Ordinance had there not been such a branch in the Covenant as a blessing upon families and posterity to be thereby signified and sealed For besides this that Mr. C. proves neither that branch in the Covenant nor that use of infant Circumcision it is clear by Stephens speech Act. 7.5 6 7 8. that Abraham circumcised Isaac in assurance of the land of Canaan and that he received the Covenant of Circumcision to that end and that the circumcising of infants had this use to signifie Christ to come seems plainly
to be delivered by the Apostle Col. 2.17 and by the general consent of Divines Much more vain is that which he adds So as if that priviledge be denied unto infants that which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant is rejected as he saith Gen. 17. The uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant For neither if Mr. Cs. sense of the promise Gen. 22.18 Gen. 12.2 3. be rejected is there any thing which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant rejected nor had the denying of Circumcision to infants necessarily inferred the rejecting of that which was given in Abrahams Covenant nor do the words Gen. 17.14 import that by not circumcising the person omitting it had rejected that which was given in Abrahams Covenant for so Moses not circumcising his son had rejected the Covenant but the breaking the Covenant was onely meant of breaking the command of that which was the token of the Covenant Much less is this true of those that deny infant Baptism that they reject the spiritual blessings given in Abrahams Covenant Baptism being not by Christs institution a seal of Gods Covenant or promise to us unless by consequence much less the mixt Covenant of Abraham as it contained domestical benefits proper to Abrahams house much more less the new conceited promise of Mr. C. Nor was infant Baptism ever commanded by God but invented by men in a fond imitation of Jewish Circumcision and as long as we keep close to the institution Matth. 28.19 and baptize and are baptized upon believing in testimony of our union with Christ and his Church 1 Cor. 12.13 we may securely flight Mr. Cs. doom of being cut off from Gods people which after Mr. Cotton refuted by me in the second part of this Review sect 11. he hath vainly here renewed to affright silly people with Mr. C. adds That Abraham was called father of believers 1. from believing this additional promise given in order to the increase of his spiritual seed which he proves from Rom. 4.18 Gen. 15.5 2. From his receiving the seal of that promise Rom. 4.11 From which place we may observe 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith 2. That because it was a seal of that righteousness which he had before he was circumcised he therefore became the Father of all that believe whether circumcised or not Now had not this seal been given him that he might be the Father of believers his receiving it at this or that time whether before or after his believing to righteousness had made nothing for the universality of his relation as a Father of all believers Answ. I grant that Abrahams believing the promise Gen. 15.5 and his receiving Circumcision a seal of that righteousness of faith he had in uncircumcision was the reason of his title of Father of believers And I grant that Abrahams personal Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers circumcised or uncircumcised and therefore he had it afore his Circumcision that it might not be judged as proper to the circumcised But 1. I deny That the promise was Gen. 15.5 as Mr. Cs. additional promise is that Every believer should be a blessing to his family and posterity so as that God should ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents but that Abraham though then childless should have innumerable children by natural generation though he were and his wife aged and more by believing as he did 2. The Scripture doth not say that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the promise Gen. 15.5 but a seal of the rightiousness of faith he had Gen. 15.6 it was not a seal of a promise of a thing future but of a benefit obtained many years before 3 I find not any ones Circumcision but the Circumcision which Abraham had in his own person stiled the seal of the righteousness of faith nor to any but him that believes as he did 4. That his receiving the seal is not made the reason of Abrahams relation of Father of all believers but justification by faith afore he received Circumcision Nor do I find that any of Mr. Cs. assertions is proved from Rom. 4.11 18. that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or of Mr. Cs. additional promise or that the application to infants was part of the seal or that by it Mr. Cs. imagined promise was confirmed and therefore this Text is impertinently alledged also Mr. C. adds That it was not Abrahams faith onely nor his degree of faith above others which gave him that title appeareth 1. because others were as eminent believers as he before him 2. There was something given which believers had not at least in such a way had not before in reference to which he was so called therefore it was not for his faith onely nor the eminency thereof 3. There is nothing in faith or the eminency thereof that could occasion that his name to be given to him but it was in reference to something which he was to have as a Father this additional promise and the seal thereof he was the first Father that received this blessing which was a blessing upon parents and their children and because at least in a great part by vertue thereof the holy seed was to be propagated and encreased And believers are said to be his seed because that promise and Covenant made to Abraham concerning the Lords blessing and multiplying his seed is so much a cause of their being brought forth unto Christ his ordering his election so as to bestow his blessing thus by families and nations being that which makes the Kingdome of Heaven like leaven one believer ordinarily being the means of the conversion of another Answ. The title Father of believers is a relative with which Abraham was denominated from his Fatherhood as the form denominating and this form denominating was from his begetting justified believers as the foundation this begetting justified believers I know not how otherwise it should be then by his exemplary faith and Gods declaration of his justification by it which the Apostle doth plainly intimate Rom. 4.11 by expressing Abrahams children in this phrase walking in the steps of his faith The object indeed of this faith was the promise Gen. 15.5 not Mr. Cs. imagined promise to other believers and so the promise was the occasion and in some sort the cause of the title as the object may be said to be the cause of the act in somewhat an abusive expression His personal Circumcision was a sign or seal of that whence the title came the righteousness of faith and a token of that Covenant wherein God declared it Gen. 17.4 5 But Circumcision did not make him such he was such afore Circumcision was instituted Gen. 17.4 5. Nor is it said Rom. 4.11 that his receiving Circumcision was that he might be the Father of the faithfull but his having righteousness by faith before Circumcision made him the Father of
justified believers of all nations Nor do Mr. Cs. reasons prove the contrary For 1. though others faith might be as strong yet no ones faith was so âminently exemplary the time and other circumstances considered and this is apparent from Rom. 4.18 19 20 21. 2. Abraham had that exemplary faith and promise and declaration of God which no Saint had before in the manner I have explained it 3. This was fit to denominate him Father of believers as Sara the Mother of obedient and well doing wives 1 Pet. 3.6 by her exemplary obedience to her husband and we are termed children of God by following him Ephes 5.1 wicked men children of the Devil by doing his lusts Joh. 8.44 It is true we are to look to other examples chiefly Christs Heb 12 1 2. yet none of meer men so eminently believed as Abraham and therefore no meer sinfull man is propounded as a Copy or pattern equal to him As for Mr. Cs. reason it is not right For 1. Mr. Cs. additional promise in his sense is but a figment 2. There is not the least hint in Scripture of that as thâ reason of the title 3. If he were the first Father that received this blessing then it was two thousand years and more afore God ordered his eleâtion as Mr. C. imagines then believing parents had not this blessing before whereas if there were such a blessing it was rather before then after Abrahams time for we find not any setled Ministery by which the spiritual seed was multiplied afore Abrahams time therefore it is more likely to have been by believing parents but after Abrahams time we read of Prophets and Apostles Priests and Teachers appointed to that end And if Abraham were the first who received this blessing then this was not perpetual and so the application of the seal to infants not moral sith the foundation of it begân but in Abraham Sure I am this directly crosseth Mr. Richard Baxters conceit of infants visible Churchmembership by promise Gen. 3.15 which I leave to them to contend about What Mr. C. saith of the reason of the title of Abrahams seed given to believers is quite besides the Scripture Rom. 4.11 16. Gal. 3.7 Joh. 8.39 And what he saith of one believers being ordinarily the means of conversion of another is true rather of others specially preachers of the Gospel then parents housholders Princes and I wish it were better considered by him whether by his dictates all along in making the multiplying of the spiritual seed to be by every believers being a blessing to families and nations by ascribing ordinarily conversion hereunto and that p. 38. not onely by common providence or so much by good education and example but by vertue of a special word of blessing a creating word of promise to all believers without which other means of conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God do not cross the Apostles speech Ephes. 2.20 be not contrary to the experience both of the first and continued gathering of the Churches of Christ and do not indeed undermine and blow up a select Ministery for conversion as being useless without assurance of Gods blessing God having provided another way and ordinarily working by it according to a special promise And how much this tends to justifie that disorder of every gifted brothers pretended prophesying and teaching in the Churches which is the occasion of the jangling and schisms by which Churches are torn asunder and perverted is easily discernable But of this onely by the way What Mr. C. hath summed up p. 70. hath been examined and found to be a fardel of mistakes Let 's view the rest Those insinuations which are p. 71. as if Antipaedobaptists did easily part with ancient entailed priviledges wherein the Saints have rejoyced for so many ages wanted so much compassion on their children as not to blot their names out of Heaven or thrust them out of the Kingdome of Christ into the Kingdome of Satan have been so often discovered to be false and gross abuses as that were not men resolved to use any artifices to uphold an ill cause by creating prejudices against their adversaries they would leave them But Mr. C. thinks to prove infant Baptism from hence and thus he argues SECT LXXX Mr. Cs. conceit as if Gen. 17.9 were a command in force to Abrahams spiritual seed in the N. T. is shewed to be vain IF this be granted that the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. especially that part of iâ v. 8. concerning Canaan to bee an everlasting possession to his seed bee of such extent and made also to his spiritual seed of the New Testament it will follow that that command of God in those words next following v. 9. is to bee meant also of his spiritual seed even in our dayes and as a command that now lieth upon the same spiritual seed in all generations in as much as that command is brought in with a therefore upon the promise made to the same seed in the words v. 8. Answ. Hitherto Paedobaptists have been wont to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed and the command v. 9 10 11 12 13.14 which it seems Mr. C. dares not rest on but takes another way and yet seems not very certain what to pitch upon For whereas p. 70. to clear the duty of infant Baptism he sums up his suppositions That God made to Abraham Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. an additional promise of believers being a blessing to families and nations that for confirmation of this hee added a seal to wit Circumcision that the application of it to infants was part of the token of the Covenant thereby that additional promise was sealed in reference to them Abraham was called the Father of all them that believe who would not think that he would have inferred infant Baptism from these suppositions and the connâxion between his additional promise and seal But in stead thereof as if all hee had before discoursed had been out of the way hee meant to take whether because there is a great distance between the command Gen. 17.9 and the promise Gen. 22.17 18. or whether he saw his exposition would not stand good he now goes another way to work and thinks to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.8 and the precept v. 9. and his inference is thus made The promise is concerning Canaan to be an everlasting possession to Abrahams seed ergo to his spiritual seed in the N. T if so then the command lieth upon the spiritual seed still v. 9. and this the word therefore v. 9. implies That precept ties onely to keep the Covenant by sealâng with the seal of it their children v. â0 explains what seal should be for that time now another is come in the room of it which is for substance the same and equivalent to it parents are
is also an objection against the principle fore-mentioned All that are in covenant are to have the initial seal or as Mr. C. speaks the initiatory seal followes the Covenant that if the connexion bee between seal and Covenant it is as well besween the after seal as the initial and so they may as well plead for infants comming to the Lords Supper as in Cyprians time and as the young ones of the Jews did partake of the Passeover To this Mr. C. saith Male infants were not to appear at the Passeover if so then they must appear at the Feast of Tabernacles must carry boughes from Deut. 16. ââ 17. compared with Levit. 23.34 35 38 39 40. that though persons have a covenant right in general yet their jus in re is to be suspended and not elicited in case of incapacity or of extream coldness of the countrey or sickness c. Answ. 1. If infants were not to appear at the Passeover yet young children not to be admitted to the Lords Supper were nor doth the text tie them all to carry boughs who were to appear 2. The objection holds as much concerning the yong ones at Jerusalem who were to eat the Passeover and by Mr. Cs. reasons such yong ones should be at the Lords Supper as having Covenant interest and therefore jus ad rem nor is there any such incapacity or danger to them in eating the Lords Supper to suspend their jus in re as is to be baptized in Greenland or in extreme weakness and sickness and therefore ây Mr. Cs. reasons they ought not to be denied the Lords Supper 3. If infants Covenant-right to the Lords Supper be suâpended because of their defect of understanding to examine themselves their Covenant-right to Baptism is as justly suspânded til they repent and believe which are as much and more required to Baptism as self examination to the Lords Supper And if it be true then Mr. Cs. position is not right that infants ought not to be denied the use and benefit of Baptism 4. If it were in Cyprians time a corruption to give infants the Lords supper so it was to baptize them being on the same reason of no greater anâiquity But let 's view what hee saith for the clearer handling of his Thesis Sect. 2. He saith that mixt commands of God having some part circumstantial and vanishing some part substantial and abiding the later is binding to us since Christs time albeit the former be not and he instanceth in a 7th day Sabbath But neither he nor any other have yet proved any such substantial part abiding in the command of Circumcision and how little the instance given iâ to his purpose is shewed before § 77 80 81. That which Mr. C. saith sect 3. is granted that consequential commandements grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandements but that any command oâ a positive rite in the old Testament is a command to us about a positive right of the new or that in mere positive worship that should not be excluded which is not expressed is not granted to the contrary somewhat is said in the 2d part of this Review § 2 3 5. and elsewhere I have often said prove infant Baptism by good consequence and I shall yeild That federal ordinances such as are the seals are as well priviledges as precepts which Mr. C. sect 4. asserts when they are rightly admininistred is granted but it is denied that the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper are federal ordinances or seals of the Covenant of grace in Mr. Cs. sense who p. â31 makes Circumcision in the nature of it to bee a seal of the righteousness of faith and in like manner those otâer which he cals federal ordinances seals of the promise of the Covenant of grace of the righteousness of faith in their nature There âs not a word Acts 7.2 8. by which it may appear that circumcision of the child was reckoned as the Fathers priviledge nor their own circumcision as their priviledge but only of Abrâham that God gâve him the Covenant of Circumcision whereby he was assured of a son by Sarah so he bâgate Isaac and circumcised him the 8th day which priviledg was peculiar to Abraham and to none other I know excepâ Zachary John Baptists father be said âo have the same priviledge nor is Rom 3.1 2 3 4. any whit to M Cs purpose to prove that circumcision is reckoned as the Fathers priviledge For 1. it is manifest that Rom. 3.1 Circumcision is to be understood metonymically as v. 30. for the circumcised sith it is not sold there was much profit by Circumcision but of Circumcision as before what advantage of the Jew nor was the priviledge vâ the committing the oracles of God to them the priviledge of Circumcision in the abstract or by circumcision as the means by which it was but the priviledge of that people who were circumcised 2. If it were granted that the priviledge were by Circumcision yet that it was the Fathers priâiledge by reason of the childs Circumcision rather then his own is a vain fancy Nor doth Acts 2.38 39. yeild any more to his purpose but is most gâosly abused by Mr. C. as is shewed before § 21 23 Nor are the passages which he alledgeth p. 132. out of my Examen dissonant to any passages before or any after except those words of my Examen p. 10â which I alter in the first part of this Review p. 64 93. And to his many questions from my words I answer that âe hath not proved the Covenant of grace wherein God promiseth to be a God to them and theirs to bâlong to every Jew but onely to Abraham and his seed that is so far as it is Evangeliacl onâly to his spiritual seed whether of Jewes or Gentile and therefore I deny it was a priviledge which every Jew had to be a God to them and theirs and yet grant that Deut. 29.14 with â0 6. was a priviledge and so I yeeld to have been what God promised Ezek 36. from the 17 to the end and Deut. 14.2 and that sundry infants of the Jews bâse born wâre in the Covenant of saving grace and Church-priviledges and that it was a priviledge to them and that the promises of the Covenant of grace are priviledges and the same now to believers and as large and honourable as then and that the promises to their children mentioned Deut. 30.6 were of the substance of the Covenant of grace in respect of the thing promised but not in respect of the persons to whom for God doth not promise to all his elect or tâue believers that which he promised then in that case to the Israelites for their seed and I yeild that even base born children may bee in the Covenant of saving grace and yet these promises are not made to Church children as Mr. C. speaks âs such but onely to the elect Nevertheless I grant the same promises now to bee made to believers which were then
personal profession but deny 1. That thââ promise Gen. 17.7 I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed is a tacit and implicit profession or makes of it self parties in Covenant externally 2. That infants born of covenanted parents are in covenant with God because they are born of such parents as are in covenant with God Gen. 17.7 What is said Deut. 4.37 Deut. 10.15 is meant onely of the people of Israel as the very words brought out of Egypt as it is this day shew nor is there a word in those verses of their being in covenant with God because born of such parents but of Gods special choise of that people It is false which he saith that the Apostle Acts 2.39 speaks in the very terms and words of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 It is true rather that hee speaks in never a term or word there used It is as false that the Apostle commanded any other to be baptized Acts 2.38 then whom he commanded to repent Did he not presume that Anabaptists as hee terms us were very Blockheads hee would not not presume that wee should believe his vain dictates when the very copulative term shews the same are spoken to in one and the other command and the words being an answer to the question v. 37. shew they are directed to those who spake v. 37. And the word you used in the precept of Baptizing contains the same with those who were to receive remission of sins and the gift of the holy Ghost and are distinct from their children v. 39. and therefore cannot be meant of their children much less of their infant children whom it had been ridiculous for Peter to have commanded to be baptized How pertinent the answer had been as I expounded it is often shewed before though their children crucified not the Lord Jesus nor were concerned either in the evil of their parents who crucified the Lord of glory nor in the good of their repentance more then stones yet I know no Anabaptists whose grounds infer that the Jews children who crucified Christ were not visibly in Covenant with their parents not capable of actual hearing the word mourning for and repenting of their sins as Zach. 12.10 Matth. 3.8 9 10. nor concerned either in the evil of their parents nor in the good of their repentance more then stones nor do I conceive it true that the opposites of infant Baptism say that Covenant promises are no more made to children then to stones but that these are vile calumnies of Mr. Rutherford unfit for such a man as he is taken to be How Isa. 2.2 3. 19.24 25. Psal. 22.27 Revel 11.15 Isa. 60.1 2 3 4. Mal. 1.11 Psal. 2.8 9. 72.7 8 9 10. are to be understood of persons adult onely and yet infants not cut off from the Covenant is shewed Review part 2. sect 9. and elsewhere It is not contrary to Acts 2.39 to say that Covenant promises are not to the children of Believers and yet it hath been fulfilled that the Gentiles and Heathen are become the Lords people What he saith out of Exod. 20.6 Psal. 37 26. 112.2 Deut. 28 is answered here sect 64.70 71. It is not true that Paul Rom. 11.16 saith the same of the Jews root and branches Fathers and children which he saith 1 Cor. 7.14 of the unbelieving yoke fellowes sanctification in the yoke fellow and their childrens holiness Nor is it true that the same Covenant which was made with Abraham Gen. 17.7 was made with the Corinthians 2 Cor. 6.16 or any of the texts he cites there being none of them that promise that God would bee a God to them and their seed His allegations from Heb. 7.22 Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. are shewed to bee frivolous here sect 66. and elsewhere What he talks of a Father having no warrant to offer the Covenant of grace to one Pagan more then another if children be not in covenant is vain the offer of the Covenant of grace being nothing else but the preaching of the Gospel which is to be to all Mark 16.15 whether in Covenant or no. The allegation that the promise Gen. 17.7 is made onely to the elect Rom. 9.8 is a plain proof of this position that the natural children of Abraham and consequently Believers children now except elected have not that promise made to them and therefore are not in covenant by Gods act of promise to them which doctrine Mr. Rutherford himself taught in his Apologetical exercit 2. c. 2. p. 306. when he said The elect alone are said in Scriptures federate sons and heirs of promise Rom. 9.8 And to Christ alone the Prince and leading heir are the promises made Gal. 3.16 Psal. 89.26 27. in him to his seed and children given to him of the Father Heb. 2.13 Nor can he here deny that the sons of the promise are the chosen of God in whom the word takes effect Which if true then it is most false that a Believers seed not chosen is in covenant with God by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 and his allegation of it and Acts 2. â9 and other places for baptism of believers infants whether elect or not as having that promise made by God to them is manifestly impertinent Nevertheless we need not say that there are none covenanted with God but the chosen under the New Testament or that there is no such thing as an external visible covenanting with God under the New Testament but say that no infant doth visibly externally covenant with God so as thereby to be entitled to Baptism sith no persons are to bee baptized by Christs appointment but such as in their own persons do profess the saith The priviledges mentioned Rom. 3.1 2. 9.4 Mr. Rutherford himself appropriates to the Jews Due right of Presbyteries ch 4. sect 5. pag. 192. What he saith pag. 77 78 79 80. is all answered before chiefly in answer to Mr. Blake Review par 2. sect 9 or here sect 46 47 48. or in answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Marshal And if it were not yet the Reader may discern its impertinency sith the thing hee endeavours to prove is an external visible covenanting in the New Testament which can be onely on mans part and being in covenant thereupon and right to Baptism and is not denied whereas his position he should prove is that the Covenant choise on Gods part is extended to the seed of Believers as such in the New Testament p. 73. His words pag. 80. They cannot be baptized but as in covenant with God are true if meant of being in covenant by their profession externally but so infants are excluded if of Gods covenanting or promise are false and so are those other words We are the same way in covenant as the Jews were and our visible Church now and the visible Church then are of the same constitution I call not the Covenant Gen. 17. civil but mixt containing some promises civil some spiritual or rather
they being enunciations in the indicative mood if meant so should bee false which to impute to God would asperse him with falshood and injustice which is horrendum dictu And in my apprehension it savours of ignorance which Mr. Rutherford saith pag. 91. Nor is it true that the promise is made to the aged upon condition of believing The promise is made to them absolutely whether they believe or not But the blessing of the promise and Covenant of grace is given and bestowed onely conditionally if they believe The promise is absolutely made it 's called conditional from the thing corditionally given For either I have lost my wits or else a conditional promise is a conditional pâoposition expressing something that shall be if some other thing bee put and sure a conditional proposition is so termed from the words not from the event A promise is a promise absolute or conditional as soon as the words are spoken long before the thing promised is given yea though it be never given The giving or not giving upon performing or not performing the condition may make the promise true or false determinately but not conditional or absolute I forbear to uncover any further Mr. Rutherfurds nakedness in this speech and reset him to Mr. Baxter to correct him for that speech nor is it true that the promise is not made to the aged upon condition of believing And as for his speeches of the saving of infants of believing parents dying in infancy and our giving evidence thereof there is so much said before of it especially against Mr. Baxter Sect. 73 74. and elsewhere that I need say no more here As for what he saith of our want of warrant to pray for them without their being in Covenant though it hurt not me who grant of so many as are elect that they are in Covenant yet I think I have a warrant to pray by a general command 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3. and in faith by a general promise Matth. 7.7 8. the knowledge of Gods goodness and the goodness of the thing asked In the rest of the Chapter Mr. Rutherfurd endeavours to find a way according to which infants of believers may be said to bee within Covenant and the words Acts 2.39 meant of them and their title to Baptism thence inferred for which end hee useth many words with distinctions which are vain without good sense or good consistency or any thing to his purpose Four ways he conceives infants of believers may be said to be in Covenant 1. In that God maketh the promise of a new heart to them but this he grants is true onely of the elect and not of all commanded to be baptized Acts 2.38 39. And pag. 86. he granted persons invisibly in Covenant without profession are not warrantably to be baptized 2. In that God promiseth forgiveness of sins and eternal life upon condition of repentance and faith Thus infants may be in the Covenant of grace but no otherwise then or rather not so much as professed unbelievers to whom it is tendred who yet are not to be baptized and if the promise be meant so Acts 2.39 it proves not a right to Baptism thence till the condition be performed which when infants declare they do I shall baptize them 3. That they are in Covenant because they are under the command for thus he speaks pag. 94. The Covenant must be considered in abstracto and formally in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners so they believe so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace and so it contains onely the will of precept In which he is mistaken 1. in that he saith the Covenant formerly in the letter is a simple way of saving sinners so they believe for such a speech is not the Covenant in any sense much less formally in the letter in abstracto such a speech as this men are saved if they believe or the way of saving men is upon condition of believing is not the Covenant sith it is not a promise but a Covenant is formally a promise or an aggregate of promises 2. In that he saith the Covenant formally contains only the will of precept whereas the Covenant formally contains not at all the will of precept the will of precept containing onely the command of what should be done by another but the Covenant is a promise of what the Covenanter will do the one is exprest in the imperative mood the other in the indicative nor is the will of precept in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners so they believe for such an expression is no command at all but a declaration of event 3. In that he saith so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace which he seems to mean thus they all and they onely But sure either infants are not at all this way in the Covenant of grace who never hear the command propounded to them or if they be they are no more in it then the Americans out of the visible Church who never heard of Christ nor so much as professed unbelievers to whom the Gospel hath been preached and therfore this way infants have not right to baptism So that this speech of Mr. Rutherfurd hath as many of his expressions nothing but ignorance and impertinency 4. A person may be said to be in Covenant in that he is really covenanted and engaged by his consented profession to fulfil the Covenant as Mr. Rutherfurd speaks pag. 92. This way I grant intitles to Baptism but sure infants are not so in Covenant nor is the meaning so Acts 2.39 where the promise is Gods promise to us not our promise to God nor is this the Paedobaptists plea when they argue infants are in Covenant therefore to be baptized for they mean by being in Covenant that God hath promised to be a God to them as the seed of believers Gen. 17.7 And therefore Mr. Rutherfurd hath not yet shewed any way according to which infants of believers are intitled to Baptism by vertue of the Covenant of grace or from Acts 2.38 39. notwithstanding all his blooding of it to use his own term Let 's view what is in Ch. 14. Neither is it true that God saith persons should be circumcised because of Gods promise Gen. 17.7 Nor that women were circumcised in the males nor was Peter sent to baptize all the circumcised nor are infants to bee Baptized by the ground of Circumcision nor is there any thing Acts 2.38 39. that saith because the same promise is made to fathers and to children must infants bee baptised Neither do I know what Mr. Rutherfurd understands by Theological essence or formal effects nor do I conceive any truth or sense in Mr. Rutherfurds talk of Circumcision and Baptism being the same in the substance nature and Theological essence and in the formal effects much less that the Lord hath any such argument Gen. 17.7 And though I should grant all are to bee
ãâã ãâã to conceive otherwise as if a Jew because cast off were become a Heathen or any Gentile believer or his infant were or could bee by believing and baptism any other then an heathen or a Christian of the Gentiles did not still continue a heathen notwithstanding his Christianity I do account Mr. Rutherfurd and my self Christians and yet Heathens There 's not a word in the Text that warrants us to say of the children of the ingraffed and called Gentiles that they have right to baptism but what if the words be expounded as Mr. Rutherfurd does of the whole visible body of the nations will allow the baptizing of infidels Abrahams children were never taken into covenant-fellowship universally Abraham was indeed a moral not a physical root yet not as a believing Father nor as a believing head of children of servants and strangers under him but as Father of believers after him And in this respect neither Adam nor any other then Abraham is the root and none of Abrahams natural seed are branches or holy intentionally but such as are elect and shall be conformed to him in believing and justification Nor doth the Apostle when he saith the Jews are beloved by reason of the Fathers make Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root but intimate that God remembers them because of his Covenant made to them his taking the title of their God their obedience to him their prayers and his constancy to them as his ancient friends when all the world were revolted The conceit of Mr. Rutherfurd concerning holiness external federal as if it were any cause or reason of re-ingraffing them or their infants is so frivolous that I wonder any sober man should once fancy it For what is it but a state of outward church priviledges right to the seals c But to imagine so great a work as the re-ingraffing which infers salvation should come from Abrahams Isaac and Jacobs or any other natural believing Fathers visible Churchmembership Circumcision Baptism c. is to derive title to heaven from at best an amissible priviledge which may be interrupted by men What more is to be seen in Mr. Cotton Blake Cobbet Baxter Mr. Rutherfurd may see examined in this Review by reading of which hee may discern that they have neither closed the dispute nor managed it so as that their learning is to be rested on SECT LXXXVII The distractions in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Cragge saith THere having been a dispute aâ Abergavenny between me and Mr. John Cragge Sept. 5th 1653. and a Sermon preached there whân I was gone thence the next Lords day in opposition to what I taught instead of letting mee have a copy manuscript they were printed with much injury to the truth and my person Whereâore having had experience in Mr. Bs. dealing what advantage the errour of infant Baptism got by such writings I being then in London and meeting with the Book made a reply intituled A Plea for Antipaedobaptists to which Mr. John Cragge hath returned an answer and intituled it The Arraignment and Conviction of Anabaptism He hath prefixed an Epistle to eight ominent Members of the Parliament which âate anno 1654. He tels them that the Cause he defends is and ought to be dearer to them then any private interests as whereupon infallibly depends the peace of Church and State He might more truly have said that infallibly the peace of Church and State depends on the reforming of infant Baptism which hath corrupted the Church and State by bringing into the Christian societies a world of ignorant loose and prophane persons who being the major part in all Churches and Commonwealths where Christianity hath been received have persecuted the godly domineered over the consciences and liberties of the Saints and upheld a proud and sensual Clergy to the infinite disturbance of the Eastern and Western Churches for many ages And though I hope better of the men to whom Mr. Cr. ascribes such heroick excellencies that they have or will have more wit or more grace then to account Mr. Crs. cause of infant Baptism dearer to them then any private interests Yet I must confess I cannot but mourn that not onely Parliament men but also Ministers should be so ignorant as to be taken with such silly inââpid clamours I may truly say rather then arguings as Mr. Cr. Mr. B. and others have mislead them by That which he saith the former sad disasters of Germany and our present distractions both took their spring and growth in a great measure from Anabaptism âis most false The disasters in Germany which were in the years 1524 1525. did spring from the great burthens and oppressions which were put on the Rusticks by their Princes Bishops Abbots Spondanus expresly in his Auct of his Epit. of Baron Annals ad annum 1524. saith That they began in Suevia by rising of the Bores against their Lord Count Lupfius and that the beginning thence being risen after an infinite number of Rusticks being stirred up to seditions upon pretent of Gospel liberty which Spanheimius himself in his Diatribe Historica § 4. refers to Luthers Book of Christian Liberty as the occasion taken by them committed great outrages And ad annum 1502. tels us That in the Diocess of Spiâe a conspiracy of Husbandmen against the Bishops and Canons which was called the Rustick League began from two Rusticks of which conspiracy the châef article was that they should shake off every yoâe and in imitation of the Helvetians should recover their liberty And Lucas Osiander Epit. hist. Eccles. cent 16. l. 1. c. 16. p. 34. saith These particular seditions in Germany were the praeludia or foâe playes of that great sedition of Rusticks which was in its vigour in the year 1525. And Gnodalius in his history of the rustick tumults in Germany in the year 1525. lib. 1. saiâh That in Suevia where they first began they did openly signifie that they were not Gospellers nor did flow together for the Gospel sake but because of exactions Bp. Jewel Def. of the Apology of the Church of England part 4. chap. 4. Divis. 1. to Harding saying Were the hundred thousand Bores of Germany consumed by the sword of the Nobility there for their obecience answers thus The Bores of Germany of whom ye speak for the greatest part were adversaries unto Doctour Luther and understood no part of the Gospel but conspired together as they said onely against the cruelty and tyranny of their Lords as they had done two and twenty years before in the same Country in the Conspiracy called Liga sotularia fifteen years before Doctour Luther began to preach the partners of which conspiracy had for their watchword the name of our Lady and in the honour of her were bound to say five Ave maries every day Certainly touching those later Rebels it is known that Luther sharply and vehemently wrote against them And they themselves being demanded thereof utterly denied
definition Joh 3. unless a man be born of water and of the spirit he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God i. e. non erit sanctus shall not be holy where Bapâism is manifestly the thing by which these children are said to attain that sanctity And more hee adds in the beginning of the next Chapter to the same purpose And so he is a compâtent witness for the beginning of that third age And a little before In the middle of the first Century St. Paul delivered these words Now are your children holy i. e. your children new born as appears by the context and Tertullian are sanctified as that signifies baptized in the stile of the New Testament and the Ancient Church And ch 3 sect 1. St. Paul 1 Cor. 7.14 speaking of the Believers children he saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but now are they holy i. e. it is the present practise of the Church that Apostolical Church in St. Pauls time to admit to Baptism the infant children of parents of whom one is Christian though not of others That this is the meaning of holy is there made evident as by other arguments so by this that the ancient Fathers who knew the sacred Dialect call Baptism sanctification Eum qui natus est baptizandum sanctificandum in Cyprian and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to bee sanctified when they have no feeling of it and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã let him be sanctified from the infancy i. e. baptized then in Gregory Nazianzen To which testimonies and the rest which is there produced of the agreement of the Jewish stile ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã sanctifications for baptisms to which agrees Macarius saying of the Jewish Baptism ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it sanctifies the flesh hom 47. p. 509. because the main difficulty of the interpretation consists herein I shall now add more one very ancient before any of these within less then an 100. years after the death of St. John Tertullian de animâ c. 39. where speaking of infants and saying ex sanctificaâo alterutro sexu sanctos procreari that when either the father or mother is sanctified i. e. received as a believer by Baptism in the Church the children are holy c clear evidences of the notion of the word this he there proves by these very words of this Apostle caeterum inquit immundi nascuntur else so caeterum in Tertullians stile is known to be put for alioqui or the Greek ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã were your children unclean adding instead of these other words but now are they holy quasi designatos tamen sanctitatis per hoc etiam salutis intelligi volens fidelium filios hereby willing that wee should understand that the children of Believers are the designed or the sealed of holiness in the sense I conceive wherein they that are baptized are by the ancients frequently said ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be sealed and thereby of salvation also And all this saith he thus urged by the Apostle ut hujus spei pignora matrimoniis quae retinenda censuerat patrocinacerentur that this hope might be a pledge to engage the believing wife or husband not to part from the unbeliever And hee yet further adds still to the confirming of this interpretation Alioqui meminerat Dominicae definitionis nisi qui nascatur ex aqua spiritu non introâbit in regnum Dei i. e. non erit sanctus Otherwise or if this argument of the Apostle had not been sufficient he would have mentioned the definition of Christ that unless one be born of water and the spirit i. e. baptized he shall not enter into the âingdome of God i. e. shall not be holy shewing still of what holiness he understands the Apostles speech that which the child of the believer is made partaker of by Baptism concludiâg Ita omnis anima usque eo in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur Every soul is so long inrolled in Adam till it bee anew in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew inrolled which as it supposeth every child of Adam to bee impure till it bee thus by Baptism made a child of Gods a membâr of Christ so it gives a full account of that uncleanness and that holiness of which the Apostle speaks the former the state of a child of Adam unbaptized the later of him that by Baptism is initiated into Christ. And p. 81. hee saith he found this passage of Tertullian ch 39. de animá perfectly to accord to his interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14 For which reason though I at first intended onely here to examine the passage of Tertullian c. 39. de animâ I conceive needfull to examine what Dr. Hammond hath said in his Defence against me ch 3 4. about both places and I doubt not but that it will be made appear by me that he hath not avoided by his Defence the exceptions I brought against his interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14 nor interpreted the Apostle right nor Tertullian nor that they do as he speaks perfectly accord to which I now address my self 1. He omits the making good of his paraphrase of the Apostles words 1 Cor. 7.12 13 14. except onely those words else were your children unclean but now they are holy supposing it unnecessary if the interpretation of the last words appear to be this but now are infant children partakers of the priviledge of Baptism which I acknowledge were true if he could make good this interpretation without making good the paraphrase of the rest But there being a manifest coherence of all together and a plain argumentative consequence implied v. 14. of the later part from the former if the interpretation of the later part will not consist with the words going before nor a good coherence and consequence in his sense making good the rest of his paraphrase it is necessary he should make good at least that which if it be not made good against my exceptions the interpretation of the last clause will not stand Now I conceive there are in my exceptions most if not all those things which I urged against his paraphrase and interpretation which do overthrow it sith there would be either want of sense coherence or consequence in the Apostles speech if Dr. Hammonds exposition were received which Dr. Hammond hath not acquitted it from in his Defence One main thing on which the hinge of his paraphrase and interpretation turnes is that the sanctification and holiness there is derived from the faith of the one party and not on the conjugal relation and therefore the term believer which is not in the text is put by him in his paraphrase and the terms husband and wife omitted which the Apostle puts down with emphasis I presume the Reader that reads my exceptions from p. 316. to 325. will judge the Doctors excuse not sufficient he gives for not answering them more fully when he assures me it were
the place will the place be clear For not two priviledges as the Dr. makes it but one priviledge to wit holiness which the Dr. makes to be baptism is ascribed to them by a double means freedome from heathenish pollutions and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism Whereas freedome from such pollutions gives no title to Baptism and if prerogative of birth âe meant of federal holiness of which is not a word there and the discipline of institution be the doctrine allowing baptism to the child born of a believer it is either an inept tautology both being the same or incongruous speech which should be thus mended by prerogative of birth according to the doctrine of baptism by Christ in his Church imagined by the Dr. but not extant in Scripture nor Tertullian Nor do Tertullians words following de Anima c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be inrolled in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled prove that by holy Tertullian meant baptized For in the words before to which ita so refer he makes holy to be the same with entring into the Kingdome of Heaven and the enrolrolling in Christ he makes the same with being born of water and the spirit Of the words ascribed to Origen and Athanasius enough hath been said already Neither Cyprians nor Chrysostomes words prove that holy is as much as partaker of baptism in the Ancients language much less in the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.14 to the further consideration of which I proceed after Dr. Hammond I excepted against Dr. Hammonds paraphrase of 1 Cor. 7.14 that the term young Children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy But the Dr. proves it is 1. By the authority of Tertullian who saith of infant children that they are procreated holy and Nazianzen who using this phrase ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle and so renders ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã their children by their infant children Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy onely 2. Noâ is there any thing said to make it in any sort probable that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle in which is neither ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nor ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã nor that hee should render ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth but onely useth a description of young age which is not to my remembrance expressed by the other word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã any where 2. The other reasons are farther from the thing For neither doth it appear to be the general doctrine of the Fathers that the parents faith profits onely their infant children some of them do reason from the faith of the woman of Canaan the faith of the ruler of the Synagogue that faith of parents profits children who were not infants The other reason runs upon this mistake which should be proved to be the Apostles meaning but is denied by me âhat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14 sanctification or baptism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever I said holy for admitted to baptism is a sense of the word no where else found But this the Dr. hopes he hath cleared both from the usage of âhe word among the first Christian writers which is answered and the Jewish of which in that which followes and saith I might further do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches holy Rom. 1.7 and sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that stile Answ. True But doâh hee term any infant so in those places or give them those titles barely from Baptism doth he not expresly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism The Drs. allegations have not yet altered my minde but I think as I did his interpretation new strange and absurd I alleged Aug. l. 2. de pecc mer. remiss c. 26. and the like is said l. 3· c. 12. Saying the sanctification of what sort soever it be which the Apostle said to be in the children oâ believers yet it belongs not to that question of Baptism and the beginning or remission of sins To this the Dr. answers T is true he saith it belongs not to that question whether the sanctifying of the catechumeni after a sort by the sign of Christ and prayer of imposition of hands without Baptism profits him not to the entring the Kingdome of Heaven And the meaning is such sanctification except it be that of baptism cannot avail to remission of sins Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechumeni mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers who being termed holy 1 Cor. 7.14 should seem not to need Baptism which Augustin answers 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification but not determining which is there meant 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctification be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumeni it belongs not to that âuestion of Baptism not as the Dr. doth palpably pervert the words p. 64. whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speaks of except it be that of Baptism it cannot avail to the remission of sins c. to wit mentioned ch 25. whether it exclude necessity of Baptism original sin and the remission of it in the children of believers termed holy Which is plainly against the Dr. who will have it meant onely of baptism of infants of believers by vertue of the believing parents faith As for my other objections against his paraphrase not answered I am so far from assurance that the Dr. can easily answer them that by this answer I judge he can answer none of them SECT LXXXXII Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from hath been sanctified for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14 is nullified and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated CH. 3. Sect. 2 the Dr. saith thus First then to my first evidence taken from the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a
Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane Heathen practises but this could not be an end in the baptizing of native Jews ordinarily for they were not born in uncleanness but sanctiây according to the Hebrew Doctors having not been polluted with idols and therefore the end or reason of baptizing Proselytes not agreeing to the native Jews that baptism was not requisite to them and therfore used not ordinarily of them It is true when they had gotten strange Gods among them which defiled them they were required to be clean and change their Garments Gen. 35.2 and perhaps some defilement of the Israelites by idolâ in Egypt might occasion that command Exo. 19.10 But there was no reason of this in the ordinary entring of the infants of Israel into the Covenant who were not thus defiled 6. The baptism of John Baptist for remission of sins was distastfull to the Pharisees and Lawyers who thought themselves pure Luk. 7.29 30. therefore it is likely they usâd not such a baptism of native Jews as imported an acknowledgement of such defilement as they took themselves and infants to be free from 7. The Dr. saith Letter of Resol qu. 4th § 18. They that were thus baptized were said to be born again and that as if born of a new mother as it is oft said in the Talmud to which our Saviour refers when he talks of regeneration of which saith S. Paul baptism is the laver of being born again from above of water c. Joh. 3.3 5. And this was so vulgar a notion among the Jews that v. 10. Christ wonders at Nicodemus that he understood it not Art thou a ruler in Israel and knowest not these things But if there were such a regeneration by water of native Israelites which had been the pattern of the baptism of Proselytes Nicodemus doubtless had known it and answered otherwise therefore his wonderment was that Christ should require regeneration of him by water who was a Jew by nature who need no such regeneration and not a sinner of the Gentiles and consequently no such known custome ordinary of baptizing native Jews 8. The Dr. ibid § 17. saith âhey that were thus received as Proselytes by Baptism put off their former relations of kinred c. To which surely our Saviour refers when he talks of leaving father and mother Mark 10.29 And Tacitus the Historian nec quicquam prius imbuuntur quà m exuere patriam parentes liberos fratres vilia habere their Proselytes are first taught after renouncing the gods to put off their countrey parents children brethren to despise them And the later Jews have a saying that he thaâ hath maried his own sister or entred any the most incestuous bands by becoming a Proselyte ceaseâh to have that near relation of bloud to her and may ãâ¦ã with her as with a âife which false suâerstructure in them is yeâ a testimony of âhe truth whereon it is falsly founded by them And this is a testimony also of this that the Jews did not thus baptize native Jews because they never allowed such incest at they would have done if they had by baptism regeneâated thus native Jews and conceived of the effect of it as they did of Proselytes baptism 9. We read of the circumcision of Christ John Baptist Timothy Paul but wee read not of their baptism by water as the custome of the Jewes was to enter into the Covenant Proselytes therefore there was not a custome of baptizing native Jewes infants 10. There 's no way mentioned of initiating Jewish females by any ceremony into Judaism no description in the Talmud Gemara Maimonides of observing any such thing as the Dr. sets down Letter of resol q. 4. sect 9. concerning Proselytes to have been used towards the Jews sundry of the things done to the Proselytes at their baptism were such as were proper to strangers as namely the baptizing into the name of a freed man or a servant the limitation of the priviledges of the baptized which are evidences that this baptism was not used to native Jews but onely to Gentile Proselytes All which being considered there was neither unkindness nor injustice to Dr. Hammond or his Reader in my discourse and it is necessary for him to consider better the considerations which I have offered in this matter unless hee will become non-suit which have certainly force in them though this thing were omitted by me which yet was not perfectly omitted as his language is by me nor the contrary supposed without proof But the Dr. however refuseth not to attend me in all my motions and I hope I shall at long running overtake him To what I said Baptism it seems was a custome of all nations as well as the Jews ciâing Grotius for it on Matth. 3.6 and Matth. 28.19 the Dr. answers Of the truth of this Observation I shall raise no question onely I wonder what he could fancy from thence to conclude for his advantage and then he fals to âonjecturing But by my words he might have easily resâlved himself what I aimed at in this to wit to shew the Jews baptism of parents and children is not undeniably proved to be the pattern of Christian baptism and Christs institution of baptism but a copy according to that pattern iâ iâ bee true that it were derived from the âame common fountain the âons of Noah in remembrance of the deluge according to that famous verse among the Greeks the Sea sweeps away all the evils of men to which S. Peâââ alludes in making Baptism the antâtype âo Noahs floud which the Dr yeâds To this I added that I knew not that Dr. H. or any oâher hâth alleged one passage in Scripture or any of the Fathers that might evince that the custome of baptizing or baptizing infants was derived from the Jews initiating Proselytes by baptism To this saith Dr. H I answer 1. By asking Mr. T. whether he be ready to pay thât reverence to the authority of the Fathers as to bee concluded by their affirmations To which I say I am ready to pay that reverence to the Fathers which is meet but to be concluded by their affirmations is more then is fiâ tâe same liberty is to be allowed mee which learned men take usually to dissânâ from them when Scripture or reason lead another way He âaith If he be wonder why the uniform consent of them that infants are to be baptized should not prevail with him Answ. And I wonder 1. that the Dr. should pretend an uniform consent of the Fathers that infants are to be baptized when for the two first ages there 's not any just evidence of the consent of one Father for it in tâe third there is a dissent of Tertullian and in the 4th of Nazianzen and the rarity of its use and thaâ upon such erroneous grounds as it was practiâed
writers which by reducing things to the primitive institution exclude other things added by men as abuses But the Dr. tels me he that saith man is a living creature doth not thereby deny ân Angel to be so also True but this is impertinent ââth this is a proposition not a command and as impertinent is the other when Christ gives his Dâsciples poâer to heal diseases Matth. 10.1 he cannot be deemed to with hold from them power of raising the dead for that we see comprehended in their Commiâsion v. 8. for thâs is not an instanâe of an institution of what they should do but a relation of what CHRIST gave them To my arguing from passages of the Doctors Letter of resol q. 4. § 55 92 94. pract cât l. 6. § 2. that infants are not baptized according to Chriâts institution and Baptism no Sacrament to them he tels me 1. That Christs institution of Baptism was not nor is ever affirmed by ãâã to be set down in those words of Matth. 28. that having been long before instituted and practised as appears by plain words Job 4.1 2. Whereto I answer 1. The first is not true for in his Letter of resol q. 4. § 24. he mentions the copy of Baptism set down in the N. T. i. e. in the words of institution which § 25. shews are those Matth. 28.19 and § 29 having as he thinks avoided the exclusion of infants from the command Matth. 28. â9 he saith Nothing is discernable in Christs institution of Baptism which can exclude infant children of Christianâ from it and again he terms them that institution of Baptism for all nations 2. His reason iâ as frivolous For though it were instituted before yet it was set down Matth. 28.19 as the institution of the Lords Supper was before the Epistle to the Corinthians yet is set down 1 Cor. 11.23 Secondly saith hee that though Christs will and institution foâ baptizing infants be not so manifestly exprest in those words Matth. â8 19 as shall be able by the bare force of the words to convince any gain-sayer without any other way of evidence or proof added to it yet by the Apostles practise of baptizing infants appearing to us by other means it is most evident that they who certainly did not mistake Christs meaning did thus understand and extend his institution and commission The truth of this is there made more evident § 30 c. I shall not here repeat it Answ. 1. It is to be observed that here the Dr. makes Christs will institution and commission to be exprest in those words Matth. 28.19 and yet in the next words before he said Christs institution of Baptism was not nor is ever affirmed by him to be set down in those words Matth. 28.19 Quo teneam nodo 2. That he acknowledgeth Christs will and institution for baptizing infants is not so manifestly exprest in those words Matth. 28.19 as shall be able by the bare force of the words to convince any gain-sayer Now sure iâ not there no where As for his other proof from other places it is so fully proved here to be vain that if the Dr. do not others will see it to be so Yet he adds Secondly that the infant when he is to bee baâtized doth though not by his own voice personally yet by his lawfull proxies which the Church accepteth in his stead profess the believing in three the Father Son and Holy Ghost deliver himself up to three c. Answ. How comes any man âo bee a childs proxy who doth not make hiâ so By wâat law becomes he a lawful proxy Where did God allow him to become a proxy or suâety for an infant How dares any take upon him to be a surety of the Covenant which iâ Christs office Heb. 7.22 With what face can any Christian say the child bâlievs or desires âo be baptized when the child at that very instant by its crying shews its unwillingness thereto How dares any undertake it shall believe when it is not in his power to give faiâh and so many do not believe but oppose the faith who are thus baptized What warrant hath any parent or as Mr. Baxâer terms the Gossips proparent to profess the faith of Christ in behalf of an infant and to desire Christian baptism for it What is the Church the Doctour means that accepts a proxies profession in stâad of the childe Who gave them or that person the name of the Church What Commission whence have the Church power to exchange and commute ones profession for anothers Who gave the Minister authority to alter Christs institution and to accept of that which Christ never appointed in stead of that which Christ appointed It is undoubtedly a most high presumption derogatory to Christs peculiar office forbidden Matth. â3 8 for any Minister or Bishop or Council or Congregation who are all to be subject to Christ and to follow his prescriptions to take on them in stead of the persons own profession before Baptism to accept of anotherâ as â proxy parent or proparent his confession instead of the baptized perâons profession Thâugh I marvail not that Dr. Hammond a man Prelatical who too much favours corruptions in Fathers Counciâs and Prelates disguising them under the name of the Church which is a preâence for many superstiâions should thus determine yet I wonder how Mr. Baxter and those who have opposed the use of the Cross in Baptism and other abuses of Papists and Prelates should having proved in his 2d Disputation of right to Sacraments that none but Professors of saving faith and repentance are to be baptized yet without the least proof or shadow of proof but a parents or proparents proâession instead of an infants and without any institution or practise in the New Testament darâ to teach and accordingly to praââise ãâ¦ã and to require parents or others to profess the faith to that ând and in their stead Just zeal to the glory of God and honour of Christ and his truth makes me thus earnest no man can justly blame me in inveighing against if not the hypocrisie of such men yet certainly the iniquity of them who oppose humane inventions in one thing and noâ in another and the wickedness of them who either by Consistorial sentences excommunicaâe as Heretiques or by exciting Magistrates against them persecuâe or in preaching exclaim or otherwise oppose those that will not yeeld to such corruptions though obtruded under the name of the Church I had said yea if the positive will of Christ be the reason of Baptism they usurp upon Christs prerogative who baptize otherwise theââ Christ hath appointed and then if the precept of Christ doth not necâssarily infer infant Baptism which the Dr. ingenuously acknowledgeth it doth by manifest consequence deny it sith hee forbids that to be done otherwise then he hath appointed when he hath determined how it should be done The Dr. when hee saith above the words I baptize into the Name
is in my apprehension an act of plerophory of faith through the resurrection of Christ from the dead the same or near that demand of the Apostle Rom. 8.33 34. Not such a low act which comes so many degrees âhârâ of saving âaith as the Drs. enquiry or address as to an Oracle for future instruction by a mans own presenting himself or his child to the Church for Baptism is which is so childish a conceit as I should think should harâly have comen into the head of such a man did it not hâppen to him as to men that talk with chilâren to talk as a child But he adds more of the ãâ¦ã when he saith And this farther illustrated as by the manner of children brought by parents to school without either knowledge of letters oâ choise or so much as wâsh âf instruction so by the manner of Christs disciples being received of him particularly of Philip Joh. 1.44 who was called and received into discipleship as soon as ever Christ met with him i. e. before he was at all instructed by him and so also by the story of the Jews Exod. 19.8 who undertook to obey all the commandements of God which hee should give which yet were not then but after given them v. 20. which are clear evidencâs that those may be received into discipleship which have not yet had precedent instruction Against this all that he hath to pretend is set down by him in these words Let putting to school be as early as the Dr. will imagine yet none is put to school till he doth know his teacher and so none is Christs disciple in Scripture language till he know Jesus to bee Châist and take him for his Lord which infants being not capable of they are not disciples not to be baptized according to Christs appointment To this I answer 1. That the example which I had used of children being brought to school by the care of their parents was designed to shew no more then this that they may be delivered up to be schollers who as yet know nothing of what they are to learn nor have actual willingness to acquire knowledge and consequently that entrance into discipleship refers onely to subsequent supposes not any precedent instruction And this is competently evidenced by that example though it were supposed of the child that goes to school that he knowes his teacher this bare knowledge of the person of his teacher being none of the documents which hee comes to learn but the good letters that are profest and taught in the school nor indeed is it imaginable why a blind child which is brought to school or put to an instructer and so cannot bee deemed to know the master before assuetude hath acquainted him with him should not yet bee said with as full propriety of speech to come to school as he that useth his own eyes as well as feet to direct him thither Answ. No child is ever entred a scholler without some such document as this you must hearken to your master which is some precedent instruction and though he be a blind or a lame child or both he that puts him to school gives him some item who is his master and to what end he is brought to him whereof none is done to an infant and though these be not the documents which he comes to school to learn yet they are documents which he is taught afore he comes to school The Dr. adds 2ly It is as true that children that are brought to school do not alwayes know their masters before their entrance no not by the most superficial knowledge many are brought to publike schools who never so much as saw their masters till they are by their parents delivered up into their power and discipline if this bee not plain enough then change the similitude from the Schoolmaster to the parent or guardian or the very nurse every one of these are to feed and nourish and as he shall be capable to instruct the child and so doth Christ in a spiritual sense whosoever is intrusted by being brought to him in baptism And we know God and nature doth thus bring a child to the parent to the nurse or guardian when the child knowes none of these nor understands any more of all these transaction then the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there And so still this evidenceth the vanity of this answer concerning the childs knowing his teacher Answ. It doth indeed evidence the vanity of this Drs. answer who being to shew how the words of Christ Matth. 28.19 do not exclude infants from baptism sith they are first to be made disciples afore they are to be baptized whom he appoints to be baptized having first turned the prâcept of making disciâles inâo receiving of persons to be discipled and making them disciples by preaching the Gospel to them into preaching it to others who may bring them to school and being urged with this that none are brought to school till he know his teacher hath no better shift then here he useth to avoid it For hee it that some are brought to school that have not a superficial knowledge of their master as having never seen him yet they are not broughâ till they be told they are to go to a mastâr nor entred into the school which was the Drs. notion of making Disciples Matth. 28.19 till he have some knowledge who is to be his teacher As for his other shift by changing the similitude it is worse for thereby he quits the cause the precept being not Matth. 28.19 set to nurse but make disciples and therefore though it be true that a father guardian or nurse are to receive a child that knows none of them and are to feed nouâish and instruct it as it is câpable and it is a good office to bring an infant to such persons to such ends yet is it neither agreeable to use nor reason but rather the part of a frantique man out of his wiâs to bring an infant to be admitted into a school to be taught or matriculated in the University nor doth Christ appoint such to be admitted as disciples to him nor is it true which this Dr. saith that Christ doth in a spiritual sense feed nourish and instruct whosoever is intrusted by being brought to him in baptism nor do I think but that the infant knowes more the nurâe and the bringing of it to that end then the infant doth at the font conceive what is done to it there So that hitherto the Dr. hath not avoided this objection that though iâ were granted him which yet is not true that making disciples Matth. 28. â0 is no more then receive to discipleship or to school yet infants are excluded who are by none received to dâscipleship or entred into schools But the Dr. hath one more liât at this block which thus lies in his way But then saith he 3dly This so imperfect superficial knowledge of the teacher
relying on this Councel shewed their darkness Answ. Mr. M. p. 38. of his Defence Though Augustine approved Cyprians judgement yet he relied not uâon his reasons to make good infant Baptism this to him is no new doctrine he had another eye upon the constant and sure faith of the Church which in that point be followed faithfully Ref. It appears by the words of Augustine ep 28. ad Hieronâm where he alledgeth this very thing for infant Baptism that Cyprian said not that the flesh but the soul unbaptized should be lost that he relied on his reaâons and the like is apparent where he and Hierome set down his words and argue from them tom 7. l. 3. de pecc mer. remis c 6 contra Julian l. 1. c. where Augustine hath these words Sed Cyprianus dicit periâe parvulum nisi fuerit baptizaâus quam vis ei non propria demittantur sed âliena pecâata But Cyprian saith a little one perisheth unless he be baptized although not his own but anothers sins are forgiven him My 3d. Excepâion was That Fidus started the question out of a Judaizing conceit that the law of Circumcision which was not to be till the âth day was to be considered and that the footstep of an infant being in the first days of his birth is not clean which shew a relique of Judaism in him To this it is said 1. That Cyprian did not concur with him nor the Councel Refut 1. However it appears that the Baptism of infants was then practised upon the superstitious conceit as if we were to do in Baptism as the Jews did in Circumcision 2. Nor doth Cyprian appear by hiâ Ep. 7. l. 4. and elsewhere to be free from thinking the ceremonial Law to direct us about Baptism 2. That other learned men as Athanasius Nazianz. August Chrysostome reasoned from Circumcision to Baptism Refut No doubt of it for as in the controversie about Easter so in other things they appeared too much to imitate the Jewish ceremonies by which the simplicity of the Christian service was altered My 4th Exception was That the resolution of this Councâl was the spring-head of infant Baptism Answ. Before that time Baptism of infants was in use Refut Yet it was not determined before but disswaded nor was any authority of any Councel which was as a spring head to it whence it continued a stream afore that nor doth Augustine in his allegatiâns for it find any higher spring of it then Cyprian and his Councel My 5th and chief Exception was Tâat the Councel determined the baptizing of infants upon these errours which are now rejected by Protestants as Popish 1. That they thought baptizing giving Gods grace and the denying it denying Gods grace 2. They thought the souls to be lost which were not baptized 3. That therefore not onely infants of believers but all infants were to be baptized Mr. M. acknowledgeth the two first to be rightly gathered from the words of the Epistle but that he also urged that Baptism comes in stead of Circumcision and if some arguments were used by the Ancients which were not good the truth is not to be rejected when some oâher are Ref. 1. The Council determined infant Baptism on no other argument 2. If infant Baptism could be proved by other arguments I should yeeld to it however the credit and authority of this Councel is taken away by reason of the falshood of the grounds of their determination 2 ly For the 3 d. inference though he lays it down in general terms that none are to be hindered from comming to Christ Yet what he saith ought to be understood of the Church because he speaks of such as God hath cleansed or purified who were common Ref. 1. The words are as express as may be We all judged that the mercy and grace of God is to be denied by not baptizing them nulli hominum nato to none born of men as much as in us lies if it may be nulla anima peâdenda est no soul is to be lost for want of Baptism 2. The very words Mr. M alledgeth for a restriction to the Church are against it they are thus Sed putamus omnem omnino hominem admittendum ad gratiam Christi cum Petrus in Actibus Apostolorum loquatur dicat Dominus mihi dixit neminem communem dicendum immundum But we think every man altogether should be admitted to the grace of Christ when Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks and saith The Lord hath said to me that no man should be termed common and unclean Which is meant of all men not onely of the Church And this enough to answer Dr. Homes who in his animadversions p. 138. finds not that passage in Cyprian which I alledge and p. 139. saith Cyprian doth not say infants perish if they be not baptized though Augustine expresly saith the contrary and p. 13â takes on him to defend the sayings of that Councel as having no errour or hurt to say that Baptism gives grace instrumentally and that without warrant wittingly to deny Baptism is to deny Gods grace But Protestant writeâs generally as Austin before judge the words to have a further sense and the words of the Epistle plainly shew that they held by the very Baptism infants had remission of sin and were saved and without it were lost and to deny them Baptism was to deny them Gods grace That which he saith of me â 139. That I would not have it that Cyprian doth at all put in original sin among his arguments for baptizing of infants is not true I onely denyed that he put it in in the manner Mr. M. conceived What I said of the absurdity and nakedness of that Epistle hath no more immodesty then is common to Writers Protestant and Papists who charge Fathers and ancient Councels with errours blemishes and ofâ times with harder censures if I had given that Epistle a âarter censuâe I had done right that I spake was soft enough considering the great hurt which hath come to the Church of God by that Epistle which determined childrens baptism by childish reasons Next to Cyprian of the Latine Fathers are recited Ambrose and Hierome and Paulinus by Dr. Hammond whose words with Augustines and such Councels as were in their times in the 4th and 5th Century I shall forbear to reciâe it being acknowledged that in those ages it was practised and by reason of Augustines esteem Baptism of infants was practised in following Ages almost without controul and in process of time that which was before Augustines dayes a rarity became so frequent as that it almost swallowed up the right Bapâism which appears from the words of Walafridus Strabo placed by Usher at the year 840. in his Book de rebus Ecclesiasticis c. 26. who is termed by Mr. George Gillespie in his Aarons rod blossoming p. 567. a diligent searcher of the ancients which were before him and of the old Ecclesiastical rites
from these words that in the Churches of Cyprus the rite of Confession was usual afore Baptism where he also saith that Basil. exhort ad bapt writes that no other then catechized persons were baptized who were called together at Easter Although I deny not that there was sometimes infant Baptism yet by all the instances of the rite of Baptism gathered by those Historians in that place it appears to have been very rare and onely in the case of apparent peril of immanent death And this is very probable to have been the reason why Socrates hist. l. 5.22 relating diversities of several Churches about persons that had power to baptize and the time in which Baptism was commonly administred and Sozom. 7 19. several customes of several Churches neither exclude nor mention infant âaptism because it was so rare a thing to baptize an infant and done so obscurely that no instance is apparent of it in any history in that or the foreâgoing âges And Dr. Homes p. 171. wrongs me in saying Mr. T. himself chargeth Augustin and Cyprian that they thought too many infants were to be baptized namely all that had Christian parents or undertakers for these latter words are not mine though I yeeld the former to be true To my instance of Augustins latâ Baptism it is said by Mr. M. defence p. 46. One swallow makes not a spring peradventure some though born of Christian parents were not in that age baptized in infancy yet that is no way prejudicial to the universal practise of the Church in which Paedobaptism was received But by his leave it is a great evidence and seemed so to Strabo nearer to those times then we are that infant Baptism was not so univerâal as Mr. M. makes it when so âminent a person of so eminently goâly a mother did not take care to have him baptized in infancy But besides wee have the words of Optatus Mâlâvitanus about the same tiâe in his 4th bâok against âarmenian the Donatist thuâ No man is ignorant that every man who is born though he be born of Christian parents can be without the spirit of the world which it is necessary should be excluded and separated from the man before the saving Baptism This Exorsim does by which the unclean ââirit is driven out and made to flye into desert âlaces The âouse is made empty in the breast of the believer the house is made clean God enters and dwels as the âpostle saith ye are the Temple of God and God dwelâ in you Whence it is apparent that even those who were born of Christian parents were believers afore they were baptized though I deny not that it was not the common doctrine that infants should be baptized nor do I make that inference which Mr M. intimaâes I do from that example of Augustin that children of Christians by profession in that age were not baptized in their infancy but that they were seldome so nor except in case of appaâent danger of imminent deaâh Which is manifest by the instance of Augustin Mr. M. and Dr. Homes impute the delay of Augustins Baââism either to his Fathers hindering who was not then a Christian or to friends permission of him to have his own will or to persecution But all these are but mere shifts his own words conâes l 1. c. 11. declaring the true state of the thing whicâ are thus I had heard being a boy of eternal life promised us by the humility of our Lord God descending to our pâide and I was already signed with the signe of his cross and was sâasoned with his salt already even from the womb of my mother who much hoped in thee Whence it is apparent that she was then a Christian when she bare him in her womb and dedicated him to Christianity but did not baptize him After he goes on and saith Thou sawest Lord when I was yet a boy and on a certain day pressed with a pain of the stomack I was suddenly sick almost about to dye thou sawest my God because thou wast my keeper already with what motion of minde and with what faith I asked from the piety of my mother and thy Church the moâher of us all the Baptism of thy Christ my God and Lord. And the mâther of my flesh was troubled because also she did bring forth my everlasting salvation with a chast heart in thy faith now being very hasty did take care that I might be initiated and washed with saving Sacraments confessing thee O Lord Jesus unless I had been presently recreated Therefore my cleansing was delayed as if it should bee necessary that I should be defiled if I did live because to wit after that washing greater and more dangerous guilt of sins in filthiness would be So I did already believe and she and all the house except my Father alone who yet did not overcome in me the right of my mothers piety that I should not believe in Christ as he had not yet believed Whence it may be easily perceived 1. That the childe of a godly affectionate Christian who devoted him to Christ and educated him for Christ yet was not baptized then in infancy nor by the Church reâuired to be bapâized 2. That when he was sick and like to die when hee was but a boy he earnestly required from his mother and the Church baptism 3. That it was not to have been done without his confession of Christ. 4. That his recovery afore it could be done put it off and no other reason was thereof but that living he was likely to be more guilty of sin if baptized so young 5. That baptism was counted cleansing and a greater and more dangerous guilt apprehended if he did sin after baptism 6. That even then he did believe and his mother and all the house excepâ his Father and yet it hindred not his Christianity not is it lâkely could or would hinder his bapâism in infancy if his mother and the Church had thought it meet or it had been the use out of the case of apparent danger of imminent death As for Adeodâtus it is apparent his Father believed before he begate him and he was brâd up by him in Gods discipline as he saith l. 9. confes c. 6. and though the Father was not baptized yet the Grandmother was and yet Adeodatus was not baptized till 15 years old and for Alipius it is somewhat pâobable hee was born of Christian parentage and bred up so but not baptized till of age However that were the case of Augustin is full to prove what I concâived For a further declaration of the practise of infant Baptism I alledged Grotius his words who conceived the baptism of infants more frequent in Africa then in Asia or other parts of the world and he gave his reason of it because of the mention of it in the African Council at Carthage not in like manner in other Councils to which Mr. M. saith the Councils might not mention it because none did
scruple it But it is more likely none did scruple iâ because there was no occasion to do so there being little or no practise of it which is made very probable from the 6th Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea anno 315. and the words of Nazianzen before mentioned As for the constitutions of Clement in one whereof they are bid baptize their little ones Mr. M. doth well to confess they are not Clements and if the compiler of them did relate the ancient customes of the Greek Church hee did relate later customes also among which that of baptizing infants is to bee conceived one for the reasons given Grotius annot in Matth. 19.14 saith And many of the Greeks from every age unto this day keep the use of deferring the baptism of little ones till they could make confession of their own faith But of this before sect 89.90 I said that I did not find in Affrica infants baptized but in case of danger of death or for health of body Dr. Homes saith he hath shewed the contrary out of several antiquities and particularly out of Cyprian But neither in Cyprian nor any where else do I find it but the the contrary in Tertullian And as for Augustine it was not as he âaith that Augustines sickness whiles young was some occasion of deferring his baptism for that time but his sickness occasioned the hastning and his recovery ere it was done put it off for that time Nor doth mâ saying that they baptized infants for health of body which is manifest from Augustines 23d Epist. to Bonifacius clash with that which I said of Augustines asserting the necessity of infant baptism to take away original sin and ascribing salvation to it for he both might and did conceive it to be done for both ends My mention of the continued use of catechizing in Augustines time and long after and the mention of baptizing whole Countries upon the baptizing of their Kings was very pertinent though not to shew no infants were baptized then yet to shew how and by what means the ancient custome of baptizing ordinary believers upon profession of faith after catechizing was so strangely changed that whereas the preface in the common prayer book before the administration of baptism saith it appeareth by ancient writers that the sacrament of baptism in the old time was not commonly administered but at two times in the year at Easter and Whitsontide At which times it was openly ministered in the preâence of all the congregation the persons to be baptized having been before catechized now it is quite otherwise so that in most Protestant and popish Countries baptism is ordinary even of infânts at all times in obscure manner and except of late in these nations in which God hath begun to restore the right use of baptism and what Bellarmin in his 2d book de bonis operibus in particularâ C. 17. saith that in the City of Rome there is no year in which there are not many baptized at Easter who were catechised the baptizing of believers is almost unheard of and counted a hainous thing and punished in some parts as a crime deserving death or banishment So great is the enormity of Paedobaptism and so great the wickedness of Paedobaptists The 2d and main exception I took against Augustines judgement which might move us to examine his reasons was the ground upon which Augustine Ambrose and generally the Popish paedobaptists held and urged infant baptism to wit the damning of the infant if dying unbaptized which made Augustine to be termed the hard Father of infants and affrighted so people in after ages and doth to this day that they will have their children by all means as they count it baptized it 's no matter by whom it be done nor how so somewhat be done else they count them lost To this which is of so great moment to shew the abuse of Paedobaptism it is said that Augustine pressed it upon other grounds but that doth not appear he urged it it is true from circumcision but upon the same ground that the uncircumcised male should be cut off from Gods people nor did âe so retract his errour but that he still held infants should be damned although with the mildest damnation of all How the schoolmen and others do follow Augustine Mr. Perkins shews in his probleme and many elsewhere and the Common Prayer both in allowing at first Baptism by Midwives and in their Preface in the administration of Publique Baptism do plainly shew it was the mind of the composers of that book at first noâ is there any thing therein or any of the Ancients oâ Baptism as belonging to infantâ of believers as federally holy Which is a strong evidence that Augustines judgement was very corrupt in this point and that the Baptism of infants was introduced and grew to such an excess upon that errour and for that reason both Augustines judgement and it are to be suspected as evil and to be rejected A 3d. Exception against Augustines judgement to shew that he and Cyprian were in these points of Sacraments not to be restâd on was That Augustine Epist. 23. relates the story in Cyprian de lapsis about the giving the Wine to a girl with credit to it and some use of it without dislike of the custome yea l. 1. de pâcc mer remis c 20 he makes giving infants the Eucharist necessary to salvation alledging Joâ 6.53 for it and ch 2. he makes it an ancient and Apostolick tradition to give the Communion to infants besides what he saith Epis. 106. â07 to the like pârpose and he ascribes to John Chrysostome l. 1. adv Juâ c. 2 the like and Eâis 93. Innocentius Bishop of Rome held the like and this not onely Maldonat on Joh. 6. acknowledged to continue 600. years in the Church from Cyprians time to Charls the Greats time as â remember the account is but also Erasmus Resp ad Archâep Hisp. Chamier paus cath tom 4. l. 1. c. 13. § 5. Gataker de Bapt. infant vi p. 269. say the use of infant Communion was ancient and to the objection that this was not defined Dr. John Rainold Apolog thes § 10. answers nor doth Mr. M. or Dr. Homes deny it but Mr. M. asks What is your argument hence I answer There is no reason to rely on Auguâtines judgement concerning the antiquity and necessity of infant Baptism or to press it on others who did so fouly mistake about the antiquiây and necessity of giving the Communion to infants nor to adhere to the Ancients determinations and use about infant Baptism who did erre so much about infant Communion For as Mr. Gataker de Bapt. in s vi p. 200. saith about Augustins authority conceâning infant Baptism it will not seem equal to press the adverse party concerning the other authority of those whose judgement in the other thy self declinest But how Augustine doted about infant Communion is manifest therefore it is not reason to urge
his testimony about infant Baptism as to be rested on but we may say as Vorstius adv Bellarm. tom 3. contr 2. thes 2. rat 3. The doting of Augustine and some other is ill brought for the consent of the whole Church and we may make that use of this instance of Augustines Innocentius and others errour about infant Communion which Cameron doth c. â7 of his Examin of Rom. prejudices to take away the unjust fore-judging of the refusal of infant Baptism aâ unreasonable by shewing how little the Fathers particularly Augustine are to be trusted and what just reason there is to forsake him in the one as they have done in the other My 4th Exception was That Augustine 1. ascribes a certainty of regeneration to children baptizâd though they were not brought for spiritual grace but temporal health 2. That he justifies this fact Epist. 23. ad Bonif. Mr. M confesseth He ascribed too much sometimes to Baptism yet sometimes he saith of some that they have the thing of Baptism without the sacrament and so Ambrose of Valentinian yet Ambrose as well aâ Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptism To which I reply It is true and so did generally the Fathers as may be seen abundantly in Mr. Gatakers strictures against Bishop Davenants Epist p 52 c. And this caused great abuses 1. the allowing of infant Baptism yea and much advancing it 2. the allowing of the Baptism of men that kept their beds by reason of sickness on their beds 3. the Baptism by womân 4. the Baptism by Athanasius on his playâfellows which he did in plây with them when but a boy as sufficicently done for Baptism 5. the bringing of infants to be baptized for cure of their bodies But saith Dr. Homes By all the words Epist. 23. ad Bonifac. I should think Augustine doth no way justifie or excuse their bad intention To which I reply yet he justifies their bad action saying by them the necessary service or ministery is celebrated My 5th Exception was âhat Augustin Ep. 23. ad Bonif. was so tenacious of customes then in use that he doth defend or excuse from lying the answer of sureties as if the child to be baptized did believe In this Mr. M. saith I scorn Augustines judgement And I reply I do not so much as Chamier paustr. cath tom 4. l 5. c. 15. § 22. where he terâs it mimical as if it were a play on a stage rather then the celebrating a Sacrament in the Church which Augustine defended But saith Dâ Homes This is impertinent to the question I reply it is very pertinent 1. to shew how vain Augustines judgement was in these things about Baptism and the Lords Supper 2. To shew what was the primiâive use of propounding the question of his faith to every baptized person which Vives com in August de Civit. Dei l. 1. câ7 â7 thought a good evidence that of old none were baptized but persons grown up and able to answer the questions âo this saith Dr. Homes 1. âe wonder Mr. T. will assert confession of faith in all Ages before all Baptism from witnesses or sureties when as we know that the first intimation of touching them was not till about 95 years after Christ. And how novel the invention of their confessions is who can justly tell I reply 1. I wonder Dr. Homes will so untruly say I do so assert 2. If sureties were so late an invention surely infant Baptism was at new it being never without such sureties 2. Saith he I propound it to grave consideration whether sureties did not confess in relation to themselveâ that they might be reputed fit to stand as a kind of parents to a child of an unbelieving parent to be baptized even as Abrahams profession of his belief in God Gen. 15. Gen. 17. made him stand as a parent to all his houshold I reply Upon my consideration it was not so because Tertull. de ãâã c. 18. mentions them as undertakers for the child and Bonifacius and Augustine that they professed in the childs stead My last Exception against Augustines judgement was That they baptized any infants even of unbelievers who ever brought them and what ever were their intention they counted it a work of charity and the defect of the faith of the baptized they counted supplied by the faith of the whole Church To this saith Mr. M. Neither I in that justifie him You may take notice that here again you confess the question that infants were baptized I reply this was not the question But saith Dr. Homes 1. âoo much doth not overthrow enough I reply it overthrows the imitableness of their practise 2. This argues against me that infant Baptism hath been anciently more universally practised then adulâ Bapâism I reply if so more infidels children should be baptized then Christian converts which is a monstrous fiction refuted by all the remaining monuments of antiquity Mr. M. They baptized upon Covenant holiness believers children infidels children upon the engagement of undertakers to train them up I reply the former appears not the later was of others as well as believers children as is shewed before This is enough to shew the invalidity of Augustine and the Latine Fathers testimonies âor infant Baptism as Protestants assert it To the recollection of the passages about the Ancients testimonies Mr. M. answers 1. To what I said that that they practised infant Baptism on erroneous grounds the necessity of it to salvation the certainty of the remission of original sin by it denying Gods grace to none and therefore more likely to be an errour Mr. M. saith p. 54. Do not Tertullian Cyprian c. argue from Circumcision unto Baptism ãâã we now do and others of them from Covenant holiness I answer No not one that I know of 2. To what I said that it is not proved to have been practised but in case of supposed necessity he saith It is otherwise and an Arminian book termed Censura censuâae of which I have made great use in this controversy which is not true saith Augustine first grounded infant Baptism upon necessity But I answer this is not true that which is said before out of Tertullian Nazianzen Cyprian proves it otherwiâe Yea long after Augustine Concilium Geâundense in the 6th Century appointed in the 4th and 5th Canon That ordinarily persons catechized not infirm should be baptized at Easter and Whitsontide the infirm at other times and infants if infirm and desire not the mothers milk if they be offered the day of their birth which expresseth it to be a permission in that case and shews it to be an exception from the ordinary course Yea Magdeb. cent 1â c. 6. of the rites of Baptism shew infants then to have been baptised onely out of fear of death 3. To what I said that there was a constant course of baptizing believers children at age he saith I have been been mistaken and this practise was disavowed
like may be inferred from v. 24 25. for therein iâ foretold that they which were taken captive who were the Jews should be delivered But Mr. Cr. saith That one Democritus would not be enough to laugh at nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that head that would attempt from hence to draw an argument to prove the fore-going conclusion the words are these even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away from whom From Cyrus Artaâârxes Darius Abâsuârus That would imply a contradiction for he confesses that these were nursing fathers that did bring back the Jews from captivity the prey of the terrible shall be delivered children are not preys to their nurses nor are their nurses terrible to their children But we need not make the mighty and terrible the âame with the deliverers or nurses The Chaldean Princes were the mighty and terrible to whom the Jews were captives and a prey and Cyrus and others after deliverers and nurses Yet did we make them the same persons there were nothing ridiculous in it sith the Jews were at first their captives and prey and they terrible to them and yet not long after deliverers and nurses So that we may retort Mr. Crs. words thus One Democritus except such a scoffer as Mr. Cr. would not bee enough to laugh at nor three Anticyra's suffice to purge that Craig that makes such a silly refutation What he adds to disparage Mr. Gattakers notes may be dispelled by reading the notes nor is he alone in the sense hee gives Grotius in his annot agrees in that thing with Mr. Gattaker And for the contents of the Chapter though there is not sufficient reason to ascribe them to the Church of England they being made by one Translator though allowed by others without any Canon or Act of Parliament establishing them yet I see not that they make against my sense but the making the content of v. 24. to be the powerful deliverance out of captivity did in the Dispute and doth still seem to make for my sense of delivery or returning of the âews out of the Babylonish captivity which being derided by Mr. Crs. party shewed the levity of their spirits to whom this book shews him to be too like Which is seen in his alleging my words not p. 14. as he cites them but p. 16. against my reason which he makes my interpretation though if hee had added my words and if so it would have appeared that I spake not those words as my interpretation And for his allegation of Gods saying to Moses thy children which thou hast brought out of Egypt I remember not where it is used but thy people Exod. 3â 7 And for Mr. Crs. reconciliation I do not conceive it may be congruously to speech so paraphrased the Gentiles shall bring thy sons that is the Churches by spiritual succession the Gentiles by natural generation Gods that is mine by adoption It may be accommodated mystically to the conversion of the Gentiles as shadowed out by the reducing of the Jews from captivity and yet make nothing for infants Churchmembership or Baptism For though I yeeld in the litteral sense infants to be comprehended yet in the mystical sense humble persons or mean contemptible persons or new born babes this is believers desiring the word may be meant If the words be mystically meant yet the words are not a prophesie of a prophesie but as many speeches are which have a double meaning as Gen. 15.5 17.4 5. Exod. 12.46 one more open the other covert And Mr. Crags purpose from Isai. 49.22 were not to prove it foretold that infants under the Gospel should be brought to baptism but to prove the propositton in question that God foretold that infants should be Churchmembers under the Gospel whence infant Baptism will follow it seems Mr. Cr. understands not the bringing of children in arms and upon shoulders of bringing infants to baptism and how else in a litteral sense they by bringing in armes and on shoulders become Churchmembers I yet understand not and am out of hope ever to do Sect. 11. Mr. Cr. speaks thus He says meaning me if by standard be meant baptism which the Scripture never cals Gods standard and the bringing should be to Baptism then the sense should be that supream Magistrates as Kings and Queens should bring infants in their armes and carry them on shoulders to Baptism which no story mentions to have been done and is too frivolous to be made the matter of that prophesie in which words there is neither veriây nor consequence if sense First hee says if by standard bee meant Baptism who makes a Thesis of his Hypothesis or affirms that by standard is meant Baptism To which I reply Mr. Cr. of whom the relatour of the Dispute p. 35. saith That to give me satisfaction which he needed not he told me that by standard he understood some visible Gospel Ordinance as Baptism without an c. to wit Preaching Praying with many more nor had I any reason to conceive he understood any other sith he named no other nor did he say Gospel Ordinances as if he included the genus as now he would evade but some Gospel ordinance in the singular number Now I said Baptism is no where called Gods standard and he hath nothing to reply hereto but that it is so in this place the Genus being predicated on the species But this iâ but a begging of what he should prove that by standard here is âeant Baptism in paâticular or Gospel ordinances in general Sure the phrase of setting up the standard is very unsutable to the use of baptizing which was not by setting up but putting down into the water And if Mr. Crs. words or the text do not necessarily speak of Kings and Queens bringing in their arms and on their shoulders to baptism my reasons are the same and of a like force if meant of the people For no story doth mention carrying infants on shoulders to Baptism by the people and such a thing is too frivolous to be made the matter of this prophesie which expresseth some great and wonderfull thing to be done by Gods extraordinary incitement and power of which kinde that is not Though Mr. Cr. grant the phrase of nursing fathers and mothers Isa. 49.23 to be metaphorical yet he applies the words before which are alike mâtaphorical they shall bring thy sons in their armes or bosome and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders v. 22. according to the proper sense of the words when he saith the people should bring sons in their arms and daughters upon their shoulders to Baptism now if the words v. 23. be metaphorical so are those v. 22. which is also acknowledged by Mr. Cr. 1 In that he grants that in story it is not found that infants have been brought to Baptism on shoâlders 2. In that they are said to be brought to the standard which is according to Mr. Cr. Baptism but that is not a