being members of the church of God by an act of opinion grounded on probable hopes for the future But to make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church that Protestant writers give particularly the Church of England Art 19. who make the visible Church a number of Chrâ—stians by profession to make a member of the visible Church â—o whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree to make them visible members that are only passive and do nothing by which they may be denominated visible Christians Yea it will follow that there may be a visible Church which consists only of Infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church It is also true that we are not to account Infants of believers to belong to God before God in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace in Christ or present estate of in being in Christ or future estate by any act of science or of faith without a particular revelation for there is no generall declaration of God that the Infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in being or future estate Mr. Cotton The Covenant of Gods free-grace p. 15. Fifthly it is ordered in regard of the persons to whom it is given Gal. 3.16 It was given to Christ and in Christ to every godly man Gen. 17.7 and in every godly man to his seed God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever Against this passage I except That when he saith that the covenant of grace is given in every godly man to his seed he exprâ—sseth himself in an unusuall phrase so obscurely that his meaning is not easily conceived For when he saith it is given in every godly man If he mean it as he said in the words next before in Christ to every godly man that every godly man should be to his seed as Christ to eveâ—y godly man this were to make every godly man a mediator to his seed as Christ is to eveâ—y godly man which would be blasphemy If he mean that every godly man is a root of the Covenant as Abraham it is most false sith this is proper to Abrahamâ—lone â—lone to be the father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 And the root that beares the branches whether naturall or ingrafted Rom. 11.16 c. And when he saith it is given to his seed he speaks indefinitely which may be understood universally to all his seed which is most manifestly false or else particularly as the words following seem to import But neither is this true as shall be presently shewed Nor doth he tell us whether the covenant of grace be given to the godly mans seed absoluâ—ely as his seed which if he affiâ—m then he must affirm the covenant of grace is given to all the seed of evâ—ry godly man for Quatenus ipsum includes de omni That which is said of any thing as such agrees to all that are such Or whether it be given conditionally Now it is true that some promises do sâ—ppâ—se a condiâ—ion as justification presupposeth believing and if this be the meaning the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man and in every godly man to his seed if they do believe then it is no more then the Covenant of grace is given to every godly man and then it is but trifling to adde and in every godly man to his seed sith nothing more is expressed but what was said before nor any thing convayed from the godly man to his seed some promises have no condition as the promise of writing Gods Laws in our hearts for if any condition be put we shall fall into Pelagianisme that grace is given according to our merits 2. That which he saith he saith without any proofe at all yea contrary to the expresse words of the Apostle Rom. 4.11 l2 13. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.7 14 29. who limiteth this promise Gen. 17.7 to the seed of Abraham and the seed of Abraham he explains to be the elect and believers only whether of Jews or Gentiles and those of the Jews that are in that Covenant not to be in that Covenant because Abrahams naturall seed though God have more regard in his election and covenant of grace to Abrahams naturall seed then to any other godly mans naturall seed that hath been since but as his seed by calling And for that which he saith God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever meaning this as I conceive of election and covenant of grace or some state consequent upon these it is but a bold dictate without proofe imposing on Gods counsell and covenant especially sith God hath declared so expresly after the Covenant Gen. 17.7 That he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy Exod. 33.19 whence the Apostle infers Rom. 9.18 an unlimited freedome notwâ—thstanding his Covenant to Abraham to shew mercy on whom he will any other being passed by and therefore that promise wâ—s made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles Rom. 9.24 Rom. 4 16 17. yea John Baptist saith That God could raise up children to Abraham out of stones Mat. 3.9 And for the thing it selfe it is not true That God will have some of the seed of every godly man to stand before him for ever For millions of godly persons die childlesse as Abel c. millions that have children yet their posterity are rooted up Were there not other godly persons from Seth to Noah besides thâ—se mentioned in the Genealogy Gen. 5. yet it is certain that none of their seed stood before God at the time of the Flood but Noah and some of his Is it not more likely that none of Elies children or Samuels stood before God in Mr. Cottons sense Besides if that which Mr. Cotton saith were true how is it that the Candlestick is removed quite from some people and the naturall branches broken off and the branches besides nature even of the wilde Olive graffed into the true Olive Then suppose a godly man have but one childe that childe must infalliby stand before God It is said indeed Jer. 35.19 and Mr. Cotton seems to allude to it Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever But this standing before God is not meant of election to eternall life and the covenant of grace but of preservation in the destruction of Jerusalem and being after the Captivity of Babylon Scribes as Junius annot in Jerem. 35.19 gathers from 1 Chron. 2.55 and for ever is in many places meant of a temporall duration for some ages This digression will not be thought unnecâ—ssary by those that know how apt many are to swallow down such mens dictates without examination But I proceed Nor are we
a people in Jobs and Lots families who were not circumcised nor to be circumcised and there may be a people of God whâ—â—re not baptiâ—ed as the thief on the crosse the Catechumeni dying aâ—oâ—e baptisme many martyrs and others that have dyed without Baptisme And in the signes themselves there is a great difference both in the acting of them the one of them was with blood the other without the one took away a part of the body the other not and after the acting the one was a permanent signe the other left no impression or footsteps of it that did remain The third agreement is both of them the way and means of solemn entrance and admission into the Church which may be granted yet in the solemnity there was a great difference the one to be done in a private house by a private person the other openly by the Minister thereto appointed The fourth agreement is both of them to be administred but once which I conceive true thus to wit that there is no necessity of administring either of them above once but a demonstrative Argument to prove it an heresie or unlawfull in it self to rebaptize I yet expect Yet this parity hath its disparity For Baptisme is not restrained to any set day but Circumcision was limited to the eighth day in its institution Your fifth And none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Jewes untill they were circumcised nor into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized If you mean by Communion to be accounted members of the Church of the Jews I cannot assent unto you For not only the children were accounted in that Church who were not eight dayes old but also all the uncircumcised in the time of the travell through the Wildernesse untill they camâ— to Gilgal and all the females were members though they were not to be circumcised The reason was because God would have all within that Church that were within the families of Israel and therefore he would have the servants born in the house and that were bought with money of any stranger that were not of Abrahams seed circumcised And if you mean by the communion of the Church of Christians the accounting of them as visible members it is not true that none might be received into the communion of the Church of the Christians untill they be baptized unlesse you will with Bellarmine deny the Catechumeni to be actuall members of the Church and oppose Whitaker and others of the Protestant Divines herein The last agreement is that none but the circumcised might eat of the Paschâ—â— Lâ—mbe which is true of those that ought to be circumcised but it â—s not true simply taken for the females were to eat though not circumcised On the other side you say none may but those who are baptized be admitted to eat the Lords Supper This you affirm but you bring no other proof for it but the Analogie conceived by you between Circumcision and the Passeover and Baptisme and the Lordâ— Supper which can make but a Topick argument and that à simili which iâ— of all other the weakest Place to prove by proportions are weak probation saith Râ—â—therfuâ—d Due right of Presbyteries Ch. 2. Sect. 2. p. 37. 'T is true we find persons ordinarily upon their fiâ—st call were baptized and then after received the Lords Supper and it is true that 1 Cor. 10.2 3 4. and 1 Cor. 12.13 baptizing is put before eating and drinking and therefore thers is ground enough for ordering it so yet I make question whether if a person that professeth the faith of Christ sincerely and is not yet baptized suppose for want of a Minister or out of scruple at the way of baptizing only allowed or because the custome is not to baptize but at Easter or Whitsuntide as it was of old or the like reason should come to a Congregation of Christians receiving the Lords Supper and there receive it with love to Christ whether he should sin because not baptized as the Jews should sin that did eat the Passeover not circumcised For in the Jewes case a command is broken not here and so no transgression If he come without examination of himself not discerning the Lords body he sins he breaks the command 1 Cor. 11.28 But where is the command that he must be baptized first And for the same reason I question whether a Minister can justifiâ— it before God if he reject such a Christian from the Lords Supper because not baptized for the aforesaid reasons By this which I have said you may perceive how uncertain your agreements are and how many disagreements there are between Circumcision and Baptisme and therefore how poor a proof or rather none at all may be drawn from the supposed agreements you make between Circumcision and Baptisme for the making a command to circumcise Infants a command to baptize Infants without the Holy Ghost declaring Gods minde to be so All these agreements yâ—a if there were an hâ—ndrâ—d more cannot make it any other than an humane invention if the Holy Ghost do not shew that they agree in this particular But to make the weaknesse of this Argument the more apparent let me parallel the Priests of the Law with the Ministers of the Gospel as you do Circumcision with Baptisme As God appointed Aergâ—s and his sons to Minisâ—eâ— in the time of the Law so the Ministery of the Gospel now the Apostle makes the Analogy expresly 1 Cor. 9.13 14. and far more plainly then the Text you bring for the succession of Baptisme to Circumcision and they agree in many things As the Priests lips should preserve knowledge Mat. 2.7 Deut. 33.10 so must the Bishop be apt to teach 1 Tim. 3.2 As the Priest by offering the sacrifices held forth Christ to them Heb. 9. so the Minister by preaching Gal. 3.1 As the Priest was for the people of God so the Minister of the Gospel As the High Priest was to have the people on his breast so the Minister in his heart as the one was to blesse so the other was to pray for them As the Priest had a consecration so the Minister is to have an ordination As none was to thrust himself into the one without a calling so neither in the other And many more such agreements might be assigned will it therefore follow that a command to a Priest to offer a sacrifice propitiatory is a command to a Minister to offer a sacrifice propitiatory or a command for a Priest to wear a linen Ephod should be a command to a Minister to wear a Surplice as the Papists do just in your manner argue from Analogy or resemblance or that therefore tythes are due to Ministers jure divino by divine appointment as Bishop Carleton Dr. Sclater and others from Analogy of Melchisedecs and Aarons Priesthood would infer or that ordination may be by the people because the children of Israel laid hands on the Levites
to account Infants of believers by an act of opinion according to a rule of prudence by which the Sacraments are to be administred to belong to God in facie Ecclâ—siae visibilis in respect of outward profession as the Catechumeni or participation of baptisme and the Lords Supper as compleat Christians And as for being accounted by an act of opinion according to a rule of charity to belong to God it hath no place in this matter For judging of mens present estate by a rule of charity is when men judge of others the best that their words and works may be interpreted to signifie according to that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 13.7 Charity believes all things But infants do not shew any thing by words or works that may signifie their thoughts and therefore in respect of them whether they be good or bad we can have no judgement but must only suspend our act of judging them But if by judgement of chariry be meant as some expresse it conceiving a thing to be so because we know nothing to the contrary then are we to conceive all infants to belong to God yea almost all men in the world by the judgement of charity because for ought we know to the contrary all may be elected Wherefore I must either here stop or else gather your meaning by your expressions in other parts of your Sermon and the expressions of those with whom I conceive you concurre in opinion and therefore if I should not exactly light on your meaning you are to thank your selfe but not to blame me This is then that which I conceive you meane That in the promise which God made to Abraham That he would be his God and the God of his seed as this promise comprehends Evangelicall blessings the infants of believers are comprehended and therefore they are foederati taken into Covenant with their Parents And yet I am at a stand whether when you say they are taken into Covenant with their Parents and that the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed belongs to them in respect of Evangelicall blessings you mean it in respect of saving graces or the priviledge of outward Ordinances though the latter is no more true then the former yet it is lesse dangerous and sometimes your expressions incline me to think you mean no more especially that which you say pag. 13. Secondly All true believers are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29 These only are made partakers of the spirituall part of the Covenant neverthelesse because the most of your expressions carry it thus that you conceive that God hath promised according to the Covenant with Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed to be the God of the naturall seed of believers in respect of the saving benefits of the Covenant of grace in Christ and your proofes tend that way I shall oppose that assertion But that I may not be thought to wrong you or cum larvis luctari to fight with a vizour the reasons why I conceive you mean or at least your readers are likely to take your meaning so are these you say pa. 8. My first argument is They are within the Covenant of grace belonging to Christs body kingdome family therefore are to partake of the seal of his Covenant or the distinguishing badge between them who are under the Covenant of grace and them who are not Pag. 9. You expresse your second conclusion thus God will have the Infants of such as enter into Covenant with him to be accounted his as well as their Parents You set downe the substance of the Covenant of Grace pag. 10. to consist in those benefits and then you often say The children are in the Covenant of grace with their believing Parents and pag. 31. You reject the asserting to the Infants of believers priviledges peculiar to some and assert the priviledges belonging to the Covenant of grace which all that are in Covenant may claime which you say God made to Abraham and all his seed Besides your Texts you produce tend to prove that as Acts 2.39 c. and you say pag. 15. They shall be made free of Gods City according to Abrahams Copy I will bee thy God and the God of thy seed which in respect of us Gentiles can have no other meaning then in respect of justification sanctification and salvation p. 16. speaking of Zacheus you say Let him professe the faith of Christ and the Covenant of salvation comes to his house for now he is made a son of Abraham that is Abrahams promise now reacheth him And pag. 26. The proving of the two first conclusions gains the whole cause if the Covenant bâ— the same and children belong to it then they are to be owned as Covâ—nanters pag. 37. The whole Covenant of grace containing all the promises whereof this is one viz. That God will be the God of believers and of their seed that the seed of believers are taken into Covenant with their parents This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham and the Apostles were to baptize them that is to administer baptisme as a seal of the Covenant to all those who received the Covenant And Master Vines in his Sermon pag. 19. cals them confederates with their believing parents and Mr. Blake pag. 16. God promisâ—s to be a God in Covenant to his and their seed which people in Covenant have also a promise from him of the Spirit Nor do I doubt but that your meaning is agreeable to the Directory which directs the Minister at Baptisme to teach That the promise is made to believers and their seed which promiâ—e what it is appears by the words following make this baptisme to the infant a seal of adoption remission of sins regeneration and eternall life and of all other promises of tht Covenant of grace And the truth is although in some passages especially Mr. Blake you speak more warily as if you would avow onlâ— a Covenant for outward priviledges as when Mr. Blake saith pag. 14. This birth-right intitles only to outward priviledges yet in applying thosâ— Texts Gâ—n 17.7 Act. 2.39 Mat. 19.14 and others you are inforced to expresse your selves as if you meant the Covenant whereby salvation is promised by Christ as knowing that those Texts you produce do otherwise speak nothing to the purpose bring plâ—inly meant of saving grâ—câ—s and the Covenant now of the Gospel is not of outward priviledges as the mixt Covenant made with Abraham waâ— and therefore if there be not a promise of saving graces to Infants they are not now under an Evangelicall Covenant of free grace and that baptism seals only the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. and therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants in vain are they baptized the seal is put to a blank as some use to speak And if that there be no covenant of saving grace to no end is so much weight laid on
consâ—quent on fornication and lawfull generation And the words of the Apostle 2 Cor. 7.1 opposing filthinesse of the flesh to holinesse makes me conceive you were mistaken in your speech when you say In that opposition uncleanesse is alwayes taken in a sacred sense And when you say that Holinesse is alwayes taken for a separation of persons and things from common to sacred uses Me thinks you might have considered that 1 Thes. 4 3. the holy Ghost saith thus This is the will of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your holinesse i.e. saith Beza that you abstain from fornication Now abstinence from fornication you will not say is separation from common to sacred uses And when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 7.34 that she may be holy in body is it not meant that she may be chaste You go on Even the meats and drinks of believers sanctified to them serve for a religious end and use to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost Is it a religious end and use to refresh them who are the temples of the Holy Ghost Then the godly in eating and drinking do an act of religion because they refâ—esh themselves It is true when their meats are sanctified to them they use them religiously but not because they refresh their bodies which are the temples of the Holy Ghost but because they use them with the word and prayer If refreshing the temple of the Holy Ghost be a religiouâ— use and end then the inordinate eating of a godly man or the feeding of a godly man by a prophane person is a religious use and end You adde So that they have not only a lawfull but a holy use of their meat and drink which unbelievers have not to whom yet their meat and drink is civilly lawfull This is true but how this proves that unclean may not be taken for bastard and holy for legitimate I see not You go on And whereas some say 1 Thes. 4.3 4.5 that Chastity a morall vertue found among heathens is called bâ— the name of Sanctification Let every one possesse his vessell not in the lust of concupiscence but in sanctification and honour I answer Chastity among heathens is never called sanctâ—fication but among believers it may be called so being a part of the new creation a branch of their sanctification wrought by the spirit of God a part of the inward adorning of the temple of the holy Ghost But this is buâ— a shift for why may not an unbeliever he said as wâ—ll to possesse his vessâ—ll in holines is to be sanctified Bâ—sides are not sanctification and cleannesse and honour all one in these passages And doth not the Apostle say Heb. 13.4 that Marriage is honourable among all even Infidels and the bed undâ—filed And though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holinesse be not found among the heathen writers as being so farre as I can finde a word used only among Ecclesiasticall writers yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for câ—stâ—moniam servo I preserve chastity as Stephanus in his Thesaurus â—bserves out of Demosthenes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where a Priest of Bacâ—hus speaks thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am holy and pure fâ—om the company of man And the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chaste to be chaste to make chaste chastity comming from the same root with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to reverence or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to admire as Grammarians conceive are used for holinesse and chastity very frequently both in Scripture and in all sorts of Greek writers So that what you say that holy cannot be taken for legitimate but must be taken for persons admissible into the Church Iâ— is so farre from being true that notwithstanding any thing you have said yet that sense both may and must be if the Apostles reasoning be good But you assault it with a second Argument Secondly this being so had this been the meaning Else were your children uncleane but now they aâ—e holy Else had your children been bastards but now they are legiâ—imate The Apostles answer had not been true because if then one of the parents had not been a believer and so by being a believer sanctified his unbelieving wife their children must have been bastards whereas we know their children had been legitimate being borne in lawfull wedlock though neither of the parents had been a believer Marriage being a Second Table-duty is lawfull though not sanctified to Pagans as well as to Christians and the legitimaâ—ion or illegitimation of the issue depends not upon the faith but upon the marriage of the parents Let the marriage be lawfull and the issue is legitimate whether one or both or neither of the parents be believers or infidels Take but away lawfull marriage betwixt the man and the woman and the issue is illegitimate whether one or both or neither of the parents are believers or infidels Withall if the children of heathens be bastards and the marriage of heathens no mâ—rriage then there is no adultery among heathâ—ns and so the seventh Commandement is altogether vain in the words of it as to them This is indeed the principall reason that hath prevailed with many to interpret this passage of federall holinesse not of matrimoniall because they conceive here is a priviledge ascribed to the believing wife or husband in respect of the faith of the one person not common to such with infidels Whereas the holinesse here expressed is not from the quality of faith but from the relation of husband and wife For that onely was agreeable to the Apostles purpose to assure them that in the disparity of religion they might live together still because the unbeliever though an unbeliever notwithstanding his infidelity is and hath been still lawfully injoyed and sanctified to his wife So that the force of the Apostles reason is taken from the lawfulnesse of marriage amongst infidels This was so plaine to Chamier tom 4. Panstr Cathol lib. 5. cap. 10. sect 63. that he writes thus Hoc argumento excluditur ea sanctitas quam nonnulli praetulerunt ab educatione nam ab ista peniâ—ùs delumbatur argumentum Apostoli Haec enim incerta est nôrunt enim omnes docet experientia neque omnes viros lucrifieri quod etiam innuit Apostolus neque omnes liberos obsecundarâ— sanctae educationi Praeterea si qui obsecundent tamen hic effectus est accidentalis non autem ex ipsius matrimonii naturâ And this is confirmed that the sanctification of the husband and the holinesse of the children comes from the nature of marriage because the Apostle when he speaks of the unbelieving party names him or her under the terme of unbelieving husband or wife because the doubt was of the unbeliever in respect of his unbeliefe but when he speakes of the believing party how ever the vulgar Latine thrusts in believing twice and one old copy Beza found that had in the Margin
bring is Heb. 8.6 where our covenant is said to be established upon better promises If this Scripture serve to your purpose then the covenant of Grace now hath better promises then the covenant of Grace the Jews had but this I know you will deny who hold that the covenant of Grace is the same both to Jews and Gentiles But that you may see how confusedly you thrust things together in this place I pray you consider what covenant it is of which the Author to the Hebrewes speaks there that it had not so good promises Is it not expresly said to be that which God made when he took the Israelites by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which covenant they brake vers 9. Now although Dr. Crisp vol. 2. Serm. 2. calls the covenant of Aarons Priestood a covenant of Grace though of lesse grace yet you say thus pag. 10. and four hundred and thirty yeers after the Law was added with great terror upon Mount Sinai not as a part of this covenant and after plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise c. So that you do grant there was a rehearsall of the covenant of works though you do make it also to have something of the administration of the covenant of Grace The truth is the Scripture plainly makes it the covenant of works Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10.12 Gal. 4.24 Heb. 12.18 though I deny not that which you say that it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Christ and therefore may not unfitly be called foedus subserviens a subservient covenant as Cameron in his Theses de triplici foedâ—re But this being so to what purpose do you tell us that our covenant is established upon better promises as if the Jewes covenant were no better then that on Mount Sinai or as if the comparison concerning priviledges were between the covenant of Grace now and the covenant of Works then whereas the question is as you say page 31. which are branches of the covenant of Grace and a little after but were no part of the covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and his seed Now the covenant of Grace is that made with Abraham Gal. 3.15 c. as your self alledge pag. 10. and you say there that covenant was for substance alwayes the same and the substance as you recite it is the promises and the condition so that out of your own words it is clear that we have no better promises in the covenant of Grace now then they had then only the administration of the covenant of grace is now better then it was to them then it was mixt with other particular promises which because they are not coÌ„mon to al believers in the covenant of grace therfore belong not to the covenant of Grace in Christ purely taken such as the promise of deliverance from Egypt setling in Canaan c. For though it is true that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come yet the promise of the life that now is is not a particular promise of possession of such or such a land to us or our seed or the coming of Christ out of our posteritie as it was then but only a generall promise of Gods providing for his children with persecution Mark 10.30 Then it was with expectation of Christ to come now with assurance of Christ already come in the flesh and accomplishing what was foretold of him then Christ was shadowed in darke types now wee see him unveiled in a plaine history So that though it be true that the priviledges of believers are now many wayes inlarged in some respects yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not inlarged in respect of the substance of it the promises of Grace and the condition they are still belonging to the Elect and believers and to no other The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours for this you quote 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter ver 6. The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away ver 7. The ministration of condemnation ver 9. Which I suppose you doe not understand of the Covenant of Grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Your next is they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome For this you alledge Gal. 4.1 c. But this is said of the administration in types and shadows and ceremonies called the rudiments of the world ver 3. Concerning which it is confessed our priviledges are enlarged but they are not branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant You goe on We as well as they are called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen Generation separated to him from all other people It is granted we believers are such a holy Nation c. doth it therefore follow that the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of Grace are many wayes enlarged You allude to that place 1 Pet. 2.9 and Mr Blake pag. 8. urgeth this text to prove a birthright priviledge of Christians equall to the Nations of the Jewes But it is answered this passage is meant of the invisible Church the living lively members of Christ. To which he saith The contrary to this in the Text is cleare First by looking back to the words that there precede It is meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ. I have looked backe and finde no such thing there It is true there is mention of some who did reject Christ ver 7 8. But that when Peter sayes yee are a chosen Generation a royall Priesthood c. it should be meant of any other then true believers who alone can offer spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ is an interpretation which I disclaime much more that it should be meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Jesus Christ. For then it may be said not onely of Simon Magus and other hypocrites but also of all the salvages in the world that never heard of Christ that they are a chosen Generation a royall Priesâ—hood an holy Nation a peculiar people that they should shew forth the praise of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvailous light Mr Blake addes Which will yet more fully appeare by comparing the words of S t Paul Rom. 9.32 33. I desire Mr Blake to revise his Treatise and to examine whether this and many other passages answer to Mr Vines
of discipling but to baptize and it would serve for a good plea for non-preaching or meer officiating Priests whereas in Mark. 16.15 which I think will not be denied to be parallel to this Matth. 28.19 Disciple all nations is preach the Gospel to every creature But this conceit is so absurd that I presume none that hath any wit will entertain it though the paper be licensed That which I have hitherto discoursed tends to this to prove that when Christ saith Teach all nations and baptize them his meaning is by preaching the Gospel to all nations make them Disciples and baptize those that become Disciples of all nations Now concerning the Position which after Mr. Blake and Mr. Rutherfurd you seem to imbrace concerning the federall or externall holinesse of a believing or chosen nation giving right to the Infants of that nation to be baptized Give me leave to argue a little First if Infants may be baptized because they are born in a chosen nation or a believing nation then there may be a rule whereby we may know when a nation may be called a believing or chosen nation when not otherwise we should not know when to make use of this title to baptisme when not and it were absurd to conceive God should give us a rule and no direction how to make use of it But no rule can be assigned whereby to know when a nation is a believing chosen or discipled nation giving right to baptize Infants of that nation when not Ergo If it be said they may be known in that they are descended from such a Believer as Abraham I reply then God would have lefâ— us a note to know such a nation by as he did Abrahams posterity by Circumcision But there is no such note nor any such nation marked out this were indeed contray to the appointment of admitting all nations If it be said when the king of a countrey is a Believer this is no rule for it may be he may be a Believer and all the rest unbelievers and then the practice of baptizing Infidels afore they are instructed at the command of Princes As when Charles the great foâ—ced the Saxons to be Christians were to be justified If it be said the nation is a believing nation when the representative body believes and so the children of that people may be baptized I answer the representative body may be Believers and the greatest part Infidels Papists c. these Infidels children must then be baptized yea the Infidels themselves by vertue of an implicit faith in their governours faith for they are a part of the nation And therefore if Mr. Blakes Argument be good The Infants of any nation make up a part of the nation and the nation where they came was to be discipled and therefore the Infants to be baptized the same reason holds for Infidels of age for they are a part of the nation If it be said it is a believing nation when the greatest part are Believers how shall that be known How shall a minister do when he cannot come to the knowledge of it must he stay till they be counted by poll as the Sheriffes do at the election of Knights of the Shire and upon Certificate that the major part is believing then baptize Why did not the Apostles so nor any other Ministers to this day How ill would it fare with some poor Christians who are but a handfull in respect of the multitude of unbelievers of their own nation as in the Primitive times when Princes and States were adversaries to Christianity If it be said when all adulti of ripe yeers are believers then such a right is asserted as never was nor perhaps ever will be except when all Israel shall be saved and so no Infants shall be baptized on this ground Secondly but if it could be resolved what number or sort of Believers make a believing nation giving title to Infant-baptisme yet there would be uncertainty concerning the kind of believing which might denominate a believing or chosen nation having federall or externall holinesse such as may create title to the baptisme of Infants of that nation There are some nations that are reckoned among Believers which yet are mis-believers as Heretiques for instance the nation of the Goths who were Arians or grosly Idolatrous as the Spaniards shall they give title to their children to baptisme when without repentance they cannot be deemed capable of communion in the body of Christ Thirdly if Infants of wicked parents be capable of baptisme because born in a believing nation then this priviledge agrees to them either in respect of their descent or the place of their birth or both If in respect of their descent then either their descent within mans memory or their descent beyond all the memory of man If of their descent within memory and knowledge then Foundlings have no title hereby to Baptisme of whose parentage there is no knowledge neerer or remoter who are neverthelesse baptized If of that beyond memory it must be upon such a ground as is common to all Infants in the world which are descended from some Believer in some precedent generation or else such a rule must be set down as hath no certainty in it by which to administer that Ordinance If from the place of birth only because the Church of God is there then children of Turks or Jews are to be baptized because born in London If by reason of both when they concurre and not otherwise then the children of an English Embassador at Constantinople or Agent at Aleppo supposed to be wicked as the Jews that persecuted Christ loose this priviledge because born out of England If there be any other nationall respect upon which this supposed priviledge may be fastened it either hath these or the like inconveniences consequent on it Fourthly if there be such a federall holinesse of a chosen discipled or believing nation as may make the Infants of that nation though their parents be openly wicked capable of Baptisme this right must come from some grant or charter or other We find indeed God would have the posterity of Abraham and all the males in that nation circumcised So God appointed it what ever their parents were for reasons before rehearsed but there is no such grant promise covenant or appointment now to any nation of Gentiles as was then to the posterity of Abraham because the reasons now cease the Messiah is now come and the prerogatives are now personall not nationall not one nation hath priviledge above another as a nation but personall as a Believer in any nation As for the Text which Mr. Rutherfurd alledgeth to wit Rom. 11.16 it hath been examined before and shewed out of the Text that holinesse of the branches there is meant personall by faith and the objection against it which he makes to wit that then the children of a believing parent should be all sanctified whereas the contrary is manifest as in Absolom the son
you and Mr. Blake aim at But your words concerning the knowledge of the will of Christ as the rule of baptizing rather advantage the Antipaedobaptists who know no other rule to baptize by but the condition you truly propound of profession of faith and therefore conceive your words a good plea for them But you further say And in this the rule to direct our knowledge is as plain for Infants as for grown men the rule having been alwayes this that grown men who were strangers from the covenant of God unbelievers Pagans Heathens should upon their being instructed and upon profession of their faith and promise to walk according to the rule of the covenant be received and added to the Church and made partakers of the seal of their entrance and their Infants to come in with them both sorts upon their admission to be charitably hoped of untill they give signes to the contrary charity being bound from thinking of evill of them not bound to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that in all ages all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few chosen That the rule for baptizing Infants should be so plain as the rule to direct our knowledge about baptizing grown men professors of faith I wonder you should say it much more that you should preach and print it sith your selfe confesse pag. 34. no expresse command in the new Testament that they should be baptized no expresse example where children were baptized but on the other side pag. 35. you say expresse command there is that they should teach the Heathen and the Jews and make them disciples and then baptize them And I hope you do not imagine that a rule gathered by virtuall consequence is so plain as that which is expresse it may be as true but it is not possible it should be so plain But the truth of that additionall rule of Infants coming in with their parents hath been examined and as yet it hath been found to me neither plain nor true YOu go on to the fourth Objection But all who enter into covenant and receive the seal of the covenant must stipulate for their parts as well as God doth for his they must indent with God to perform the Believers part of the covenant as well as God doth to perform his part as even this Text 1 Pet. 3. requires that Baptisme which saves us must have the answer of a good conscience to God Now although it be granted that Infants are capable of receiving the first grace if God be pleased to work it in them yet what answer of a good conscience can there be from Infants unto God they having not the use of reason and not knowing what the covenant means For my part I own not this objection taken from the generall nature of the covenant as if it did exclude Infants or that particular text 1 Pet. 3.21 For the word used for a Covenant may be as well translated a Testament and the Holy Ghost Gal. 3. and Heb. 9. doth use it in that notion and it may be that covenants of another may be by interpretation of Law as their covenant as in the covenant of the Israelites with the Gibeonites And for that text however Beza translates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by stipulation and in his Annotation on that place sayes The Apostle had respect to the interrogations of Catechists in which the catechised even then did witnesse their inward baptisme to be confirmed by the outward as Acts 8.37 whereto sayes he belongeth the Apostles Creed and that translated from the baptisme of grown persons to the baptisme of Infants by a greater error if you consider the Infants themselves Dost thou believe I do believe Dost thou renounce I do renounce Whence that of Tertullian which is as it were in the stead of a Commentary on this place in his book of the resurrection of the flesh The soul is established not by washing but by answering I say though Beza do upon second thoughts and neerer consideration conceive this to be the meaning yet I build not on it as being doubtfull and in mine apprehension it rather notes an effect of Baptisme and the resurrection of Christ then a prerequisite condition and there are other plain places before alledged which do prove the thing that the baptized were to professe and promise or to use your phrase seal which I deny not to be the phrase of John Baptist Joh. 3.33 as Acts 8.37 c. So that the objection is the same with the second Now let us see what you answer you say thus The Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel every one who was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. And these men professe that Israelitish Infants were within the old covenant when yet they knew not what it meant nor could have the same use of it with their parents and others of discretion look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel It is true this answer serves turn against those that argue from the generall nature of a covenant but it is no answer against those that only urge Instituton and Apostolicall practice as our rule As for that which you here and all along in your Book suppose that there is the same reason of the mixt covenant made with Abraham as with the pure Covenant of the Gospel and of every Believer as of Abraham and of Baptisme as of Circumcision it is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chief error which misleads you throughout your Sermon and makes you speak and write in a dialect which in the Scripture is unknown And for that which you say that the Infants of the Jews were as much tied as the Infants of Believers under the Gospel if you mean it of common duties of Euangelicall obedience it is true if you mean it thus which alone serves for your purpose that persons to be baptized now are no more tied to make profession of faith before Baptisme then Infants of the Jews were tied to make profession of faith afore Circumcision it is false For there is now plain Text for the requiring of it before Baptisme but not before Circumcision But you say every one that was circumcised was bound to keep the whole Law Gal. 5. True and therefore circumcision was in the use of it diametrally opposite to the use of Baptisme You say and these men professe that the Israelitish Infants were within the old Covenant when yet they knew not what it meant and then say look what answer they will make for the Jews Infants if true will abundantly satisfie for the Infants of Believers under the Gospel If you mean this concerning the reason why the Christians Infants should not be baptized though the Jews Infants were circumcised this is a true and satisfactory answer
2. 38 39. Luk 19.9 Annot. on the Bible edit 1645. on Acts 2.36 The promise is unto you Christ is promised both to Iewes and Gentiles but the Iewes had the first place §. 7. Of the text Rom. 11.16 So also the new Annot. on Rom. 11.16 Arminius l. 1. Antiperk p 3. Sect. 6. Infantes in parentibuâ— avis abavis atavis tritavis Evangelii gratiam repudiarunt quo actu meruerunt ut a Deo desererentur velim enim mihi c. Perpetua enim est foederis Dei ratio quod filii in parentibâ—â— comprehendantur censeantur Cui opponit Tuissus ibidem Nec us piam in sacris literis significatur Deum ejusmodi foedus cum homine lapso pepigisse ut si crederet adipisceretur gratiam sibi posteris contra si non crederet sibi posteris suis gratiam amitteret cujusmodifoedus sub conditione obedientiae cum Adamo initum fuisse omnes Theologi agnoscunt §. 8. Of the Text 1 Cor. 7.14 Tertul. lib. 2. ad uxorem cap. 3. Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subcuntes stupri reos esse constat arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis ex literis Apostoli dicentis cum ejusmodi nâ—c cibum sumendum Grot. annot in Mat. 19 5. nulla autem arctior amiâ—itia quaÌ„ mariti uxoris quae communionem requirit affectuum corporis prolis vitae denique totius quam rem esse vere sacram id est non humaniâ—us sed divinitus repertam magno consensu gâ—ntes â—â—ed derunt Grâ—t annot in Maâ— 5.8 So ent pro eodem usurpari 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 9. Of the succession of Baptisme into the place room and use of Circumcision §. 10 Of the notion under which the reasons for which persons were circumcised shewing that all persons that were circumcised were not in the covenant of Grace §. 11. Of the priviledges of Believers under the Gospel and whether the want of Infant-Baptisme be want of a priviledge of the covenant of Grace which the Jews had §. 12. That the command to circumcise male Infants is not virtually a command to baptize Infants §. 13. That Mat. 28. is not a Command to baptize Infants but contrary to it Master Balâ—y A diswasion from the error of the times ch 8. p. 175. argues from this very text in like manner to prove that only Ministers have power to preach the Word ordinarily §. 14. Of examples in Scripture of Infants Baptisme particularly of baptizing of housholds §. 15. Of an infants capacity of inward grace the Text Mat. 19.14 and of the inconsequence of Paedobaptisme thereon Grot. annot ad Mat. 9.18 notum erat Judaeis solere Deum Prophetis hunc exhibere honorem ut in alios dona sua conferret ad prophetarum preces quarum symbolum erat manuum impositio Ad Mat. 19.13 pro pueris etiam eo ritu preces concipi solitas manifestum est ex Gen. 48.14 15. Exinde Hebraeis semper observatum ut ad eos qui sanctimonia praestare caeteris crederentur pucros deserrent ipsorum precibus Deo commendandos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui mos bodie apud ipsos manet Hunc autem morem Christus probans ostendit isti etiam aetati prâ—desse aliorum fidem ac preces §. 1. Of the first objectioÌ„ from institution Mat. 28.19 and the practise of John Baptist and the Apostles Cotton in his way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap 4. sect 6. And indeed the Commission which Christ gave his Apostles holdeth it forth that they were by preaching to make disciples before they baptized them and their children Mat. 28.19 Now a disciple is a Scholler in Christs schoole and therefore when the Apostles were directed to make disciples before they did baptize them they were not onely to coÌ„vert them to the faith but also to gather them as disciples or schollers into a schoole of Christ. Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 1. prop. 4. In the times of John the Baptist such as were received into baptisme they did first make confession of their sins and therewith of their repentance and of their faith also in him who was to come after him Mat. 3.13 Act. 19.4 5. And in the times of the Apostles Philip received â—he Eunuch unto baptisme not untill he had made professioÌ„ of his faith in Christ Jesus Act 8.37 Cham. Panstr Cath. tom 4. l. 5. c. 15. §. 19. Hiritus omnes professionis fidei c. ab ipsae baptismi institutione habuerunt originem nec debeÌ„t omitti tantum proaetatis ratione dispensari §. 2. Of the second objection and therein of the condition prerequisite to Baptisme Videatur Chamierus Panstr Cath. tom 4. li. 5. c. 15. Grot. annot on Mat. 28.19 §. 3. Of the third so called objection and therein of the knowledge requisite concerning the person to be baptized §. 4. Of the fourth Objection therein of the stipulation of Baptisme Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England ch 4. Sect. 5. The Word of God receiveth none to the fellowship of the seals of the covenant but such as professe their takâ—ng hold of the covenant §. 5. Of the fifth Objection and therein of the benefit that comes by Infant-Baptismâ— Dr. Twisse The doctrine of the Synod of Dort Arles c Part 2. § 3. p. 121. I willingly confesse that the Sacrament of Baptisme is the seale of the righteousnesse of faith unto us Christians as Circumcision was unâ—o the Jews Rom. 4. which is as much aâ— to say that it assures us of the remission of our sins as many as believe and I conceive it to be a visible signe of invisible grace and that not of justification only unto them that believe but of the grace of regeneration also but how not at that instant collatae but suo tempore conferendâ— to wit when God shall effectually call a man and it is very strange unto me that regeneration should go before vocation Sâ—e more to the same purpose in the same Author part 3. §. 6. §. 6. Of the sixth objection and therein of Infant-coÌ„munion by vertue of their being in the Covenant the Lords Supper succâ—eding the Passeover Cotton The way of the Churches of Christ in New-England Chap. 1. sect 2. To the Passeover all Jewes were admitted young and old unlesse defiled with some pollution §. 7. Of the first use and the Anabaptists supposed bloudy sentence §. 8. The Epilogue containing some expressions and motions of the Author Mr Stalhams Epistle before a Conference at Terling in Essex