that such Infants may bee elected though they are not regenerated for if there be any thing lesse then regeneration promised sure there can be no comfortable likelihood of the election of a child gathered from a promise of any thing which leaves a child in an unregenerate estate But I much admire that speech of yours where you feare you should incur blasphemy by challenging a promise which God doth not keepe because many of the children of beleevers prove wicked I beseech you tell me was it not so among Abrahams posteritie and yet you grant Abraham had a peculiar promise which wee have not might not they without blasphemy plead that promise notwithstanding that promise I will he the God of thee and thy seed was not made good to every one of them for it is most cleare by the Apostles discourse in the ninth and eleventh Chapters to the Romans that God was not the God of thousands of Abrahams seed either in respect of saving grace or outward priviledges for he cast off the Jewes from being his people and suffered them not to enjoy so much as outward priviledges but made choice of the Gentiles in their stead and yet I hope you will not say that God broke his Covenant with those that had the seale of the Covenant in their flesh and yet were rejected not onely from saving grace but from outward priviledges Next let us see how you avoid being goared by the three hornes of my Syllogisme I said all being left in the same condition 1. All must be saved Or 2. all must bee damned Or 3. God saves some of the Infants of the Turkes and some of the Infants of beleevers pro beneplacito After some discourse of the two first of these you deny the consequence It follows not say you God may save some and those some may bee the Infants of beleevers and none of the Infants of Turks and Indians It 's true a man that will may venture to say so and if another will he may venture to say That those some are the Infants of Pagans and not of Christians and hee that should say so hath as good warrant for this as you have for the other according to your principle But what 's this to the question before us I said This opinion leaves them all in the like condition One having no more reference to a promise then another Now if you will avoid being goared by any of these three hornes you should have shewed that according to your opinion there is some promise for some of the Infants of beleevers though there be none for the Infants of Pagans But in stead of shewing how your doctrine and opinion leaves them you tell me what God may possibly doe in his secret Counsell which is altogether unknowne to us But I perceive your selfe suspected this answer would not endure the tryall and therefore you quarrell at that expression of mine That if any of the Infants of such as live and die Pagans be saved by Christ then salvation by Christ is earryed out of the Church whereof God hath made no promise Against this you except 1. That salvation is not carryed out of the invisible Church though some Infants of Pagans should bee saved by Christ I answer it 's true and I adde That if any man shall say the Devils should be saved by Christ even that Opinion would not carry salvation out of the invisible Church But Sir we are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made Now when you can prove that God hath made a promise that he will gather a number or hath a number whose names are written in the Lambs book although their Parents never knew Jesus Christ nor themselves ever live to bee instructed you may then perswade your Reader to beleeve that even some of the Infants of Pagans dying in their Infancy belong to the invisible Church and till then you must give him leave to beleeve that this answer is brought in as a shift onely to serve your present need Secondly you answer That men may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church and you instance Abraham called out of Chaldea Job in the Land of Vz Rahab in Jericho and you say Hee that called these may save some amongst Turkes and Indians out of the visible Church I answer I hope in your next you will a little better explaine your meaning The Reader will certainly take this to bee your meaning that as Abraham Job and Rahab were saved out of the communion of thâ— visible Church in their dayes so some among the Turkes and Indians may bee saved out of the communion of the visible Church in our dayes But surely this is not your meaning you doe not beleeve that Abraham Job and Rahab were out of the communion of the visible Church though possibly the manner of their calling might bee extraordinary as afterwards St. Pauls was Nor doe you beleeve that the Eunuch when he was returned into Ethiopia was out of the Communion of the visible Church though his habitation at least for aâ— while was not among Christians but Infidels I am perswaded that you thinke all visible beleevers to bee within the Communion of the visible Church though possibly they may be hindered from being actuall Members of any particular Church I will not so much as imagine that you mentioned these three examples as a Blinde to deceive your uncautelous Reader and therefore I only desire you in your next to let us know your meaning plainely and discover to us this mystery how men may bee called to fellowship with Jesus Christ and yet have no communion with the visible Church of Christ The rest of this Section wherein you enquire what those promises are which are are made to the seed of beleevers I shall God willing give you an account of them in the next part of the Sermon whither now you call me onely I cannot but take notice of your confident brag in the close of this Section how manfully you have entred my out-workes and thereby incourage your selfe to scale my walls You indeed entred and set up your flag but I hope it appeares to the indifferent Reader that you are in no great probabilitie of getting any great spoile unlesse my walls prove weaker then the outworke which as yet are farre from being taken by you PART III. NOw wee come to that wherein I rightly placed the strength of my cause the evidence which the Scripture gives for Infant-Baptisme which before I proceed in the examination of I briefly propound to the Readers consideration that you have this advantage to make your worke have a specious probabilitie in that the question is concerning Infants concerning whom there is much silence in the Scripture and should any man argue against the justification of Infants by the Theologicall doctrine that is to bee found cleare in the Scripture how specious a plea might he make especially if his
to him who makes an outward profession because wee have not a Spirit of discerning to know them to bee reall beleevers then it undeniably follows That some may rightly be accounted to belong to the Church of God and Covenant of grace beside reall beleevers which is as much as I need to make my sense and meaning in this Proposition to passe for currant And truly Sir whoever will grant that a Minister in applying the seale must doe it de fide in faith being assured he applyes it according to rule must either grant such a right as I plead for that many have right to bee visible members and bee partakers of the externall administration of Ordinances though they be not inwardly sanctified or else hee must by revelation be able to see and know the inward conversion of every one hee applyes the seale unto for certainly hee hath no written Word to build his faith upon for the state of this or that man And for my own part when once you have disproved this that there is such a visible membership and right to externall administrations as I have here infisted upon I shall not onely forbeare baptizing Infants but the administration of the externall seale to any what profession soever they make untill I may bee de fide assured that they are inwardly regenerate This then was and is my meaning when I say That Infants of believers are confederates with their Parents that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their Parents have by being visible Professors and are therefore to be admitted to all such external Church-priviledges as their Infant age is capable of and that the visible Church is made up of such visible Professors and their Children that the invisible takes in neither all of the one nor the other but some of both Whereas therefore you say you are at a stand to finde out what my meaning is and know not what to deny or what to grant and again pag. 45. You are at a stand whether I meane they are to bee taken in with their Parents into Covenant in respect of saving grates or the outward priviledge of Church-ordinances I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning I meane of them as I meane of other visible Professors they are taken into Covenant both ways respectively according as they are elect or not elect all of them are in Covenant in respect of outward priviledges the elect over and above the outward priviledges are in Covenant with respect to saving graces and the same is to bee said of visible members both Parents and Infants under the New Testament in this point of being in Covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration whether Jewes and their children or Proselytes and their children I endeavour in all this to speak as clearly as I can possibly not onely because you say you are oft at a stand to pick out my meaning but because this mistake runs through your whole book that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of grace but onely such as partake of the saving graces of it Now I proceed with you When I say That God would have beleevers children reputed to belong to his Church and family and not to the devills You answer That you feare I use that expression of not belonging to the Devills Kingdome to please the people But Sir why doe you judge my heart to intend amisse in using an expression which your self cannot mislike I have more cause to think you use all these words it cannot be denyed but God would have the Infants of beleevers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devills And againe it is true in facie visibilis Ecclesiae the Infants of beleevers are to bee accounted Gods c. onely ad faciendum populum to please the people because this is not your judgement for when you speake your full meaning and sense of this point you professe you know no more promise for them in reference to the Covenant then to the children of Turkes And even here you onely grant them a nearer possibility to belong to the Covenant of grace then the children of Infidels have therefore in your judgement they are not now actually belonging to it but onely in a possibility so that though they may be accounted to belong to the Kingdom of God potentially yet by your doctrine they belong to the Kingdom of the Devill actually and all this charitable opinion which here you expresse toward them dontaines no more then is to be allowed to the child of a Turk if born among Christians especially if a Christian will take it and bring it up in Christian Religion and by what may we ground any probable hopes they will actually receive the profession of Christ since by your rule there is no promise no externall Covenant why may I not have as good hopes of Heathens children if Gods promise helpe not here But say you To make them actually members of the visible Church is to overthrow the difinitions of the visible Church that Protestant Writers use to give because they must be all Christians by profession I reply it overthrows it not at all for they all include the Infants of such Professors as the visible Church among the Jewes did include their Infants male and female too lest you say that Circumcision made them members I adde also Baptisme now as well as Circumcision of old is a reall though impâ—iâ—â—â— Profession of the Christian Faith But say you Infants are oâ—ly passive and doe nothing whereby they may bee denominated visible Christians I answer even as much as the Infants of Jewes could doe of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Yea say you further it will follow That there may bee a visible Church which consists onely of Infants of beleevers I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and Women should dye and leave onely 〈◊〉 behindâ— them and it 's farre more probable that a Church 〈…〉 Anabaptists why may consist onely of Hypocritâ—â— Againe you affirme We are not to account Infants to belong to God either in respect of election or promise of grace or presenâ—◠〈◊〉 of in being in Christ 〈◊〉 â—state by any act of 〈…〉 with in a particulâ—â— revelation because there 〈…〉 declaration of God that the Infants of prisâ—â—◠〈…〉 all or some either are elected to life or in the Covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate To which I answer briefly though all this bee granted if meant of the spirituall part of the Covenant onely yet this makes nothing against that visible membership which I plead for Yea I reâ—ort the argument upon your selfe and dare boldly affirme that by this argument no visible Church or all
saving grace to Infants the Seale is set to a blank for give mee leave but to put the same case first for the Infants of the Jewes was the seale put to a blanke with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let mee put the same case in growne men who make an externall visible profession and thereupon are admitted to baptisme can any man say that all the saving graces of the Covenant or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages even in the best times even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized to whom God yet never gave saving graces and therefore never promised them for had hee made a promise hee would have performed it But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seale and then you neede stumble at this no longer these three things are necessarily to be distinguished first the truth of the thing signified in a Sacrament and secondly my interest in that thing And thirdly my obligation to doe what is required in or by that Sacrament I say therefore that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it selfe and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision to confirme the promises made unto the Fathers so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptisme according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer that Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Baptisme but as to the second which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the Covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia conditionall seales sealing the spirituall part of the Covenant to the receiver upon condition that hee performe the spirituall condition of the Covenant thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seales alledges then they are falsely applyed ostentimes hee answers to Bellarmine Sacraments are conditionall Seales and therefore not seales to us but upon condition Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or the for him to performe who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute all Circumcised and Baptized persons did or doe stand absolutely ingaged to performe the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision oblieged to keepe the Law that is that legall and typicall administration of the Covenant which was then in force and Infants among the rest were bound to this though they had no understanding of the Covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this Seale was administred to them Now then since in Baptisme there is first an absolute Seale of the truth of the Covenant of grace in it selfe a conditionall seale of the receivers interest in the Covenant and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part is there any reason that you should say that the seale is put to a blank where the spirituall part or saving grace is not partaked of What you further say here that by Abraham who is the father of the faithfull is meant Abrahams person and not every beleever that it was a personall priviledge to Abraham and not a common priviledge to beleevers as beleevers which thing you repeate very often it shall bee considered in a more proper place So that you having thus wholly mistaken my sense and undertaken to dispute against a sense which I never owned I may therefore passe over your six arguments which you bring to confute this sense which you have set downe I joyne with you that it is an errour to say that all Infants of beleevers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the Covenant for although I finde abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posteritie of his people and that experience â—eacheth us that God uses to continue his Church in their posteritie and that Gods election lies more among their seed then among others yet neither to Jew nor Gentile was the Covenant so made at any time that the spirituall part and grace of the Covenant should bee conferred upon them all it is sufficient to mee that they may have a visible standing in the Church partake of the outward priviledges of the Church and bee trained up under that discipline or administration of the Covenant which God uses to make effectuall to salvation in the meane time all of them to bee visible members as well as their parents and some of them invisible as well as some of their parents And therefore although in some of your fix reasons there are divers expressions which I cannot swallow yet I shall not here stay upon them but examine them when you bring them elsewhere to dispute against mee as here you doe not onely give mee leave to touch upon the last of your fix arguments because in some sense it militates against my Thesis Is this were true say you that the Covenant of grace is a birthright priviledge then the children of beleevers are the children of grace by nature then Christians are borne Christians not made Christians if the child of a Christian be borne a Christian as the child of a Turke is borne a Turke and if so how are they borne the children of wrath as well as others I answer According to the sense which I owne I maintaine this assertion to bee true that the child of a Christian is borne a Christian it is his birthright to bee so esteemed I meane to bee reputed within the Covenant of grace or a member of the visible Church our I am sure it was so the child of a Iew was borne a Iew and it was his birthright to bee an Israelite a visible member of the Church of Israel and the Apostle Paul stuck not to use the word Iewes by nature Gal. 2. 15. We who are Iewes by nature and not 〈◊〉 of the â—â—â—tiles â—ee there opposes the naturall priviledge of the members of the Church to the condition of the heathens and Rom. 11. hee calls the whole nation of the Iewes the naturall branches of the Olive tree because they were the visible Church of God Will you say of them also how were they then the children of wrath by nature I answer doe but consider the Apostles distinction Rom. 2. last betwixt a Jew in propatulo in facievisibilis ecclesiae a Jew without and a Jew in abscondito a Jew within and your objection is answered in the first
sense every child of a beleever is brone a Christian that is hee is a member of the visible Church in the second sense none can claime it as a birthright men must be made Christians in that sense and not borne Christians thus this which is a weake objection of the Lutherans against the Calvinists is easily answered to bee children of wrath by nature and yet to bee holy in an externall Covenant being borne of beleeving parents do no whit oppose one another thus it was not onely among the Jewes who had a visible standing under the Covenant of grace and yet multitudes of them were the children of wrath but even thus it is unto this day among growne men who are admitted to be Christians in your way some of them are sancti called and holy in the face of the visible Church and yet not so coram facie dei whilst others are so both in the spirit and in the letter Your great errour and mistake is that you speake not distinctly of the Covenant of grace for whereas the Covenant is to bee largely understood for the whole dispensation of it in outward Ordinances as well as saving graces you usually take it strictly for saving graces which belong onely to the elect You cannot bee ignorant how our Divines owne the outward administration of the Covenant under the notion of faedus externum and the spirituall grace of it under the notion of faedus inteâ—â—um you still restraine the Covenant to the spirituall part onely and would perswade your Reader that they who speake of the Covenant of grace must meane it thus strictly and yet you bring not arguments to disprove a true visible membership upon a visible profession whether the inward saving grace be known or not Now I returne with you to my Sermon where your examen proceeds I used for illustration sake â—â— comparison from other Kingdomes Corporations and Families the children follow the condition of their parents free mâ—nâ— children are borne free the children of slaves are borne slaves c. and thus hath God ordained said I that it shall bee in his Kingdome and Family children follow the Covenant condition of their parents this passage you slight first in generall as that which containes nothing but dictates but parâ—ius-ista-vitis you may give your adversary two in the seven at dictating you who call my onely using a comparison or allusion to bee a dictating can dictate in this very place Christianitie say you is no mans birthright this was but even just now the question betwixt you and Mr. Blake and you here without any proofe â—et downe this peremptory conclusion which was the very question betwixt you Christianitis is no mans birth-right but the thing is true call it what you please and will not bee blowne away with a scornefull puffe but say you I doâ—very carnally imagine the Church of God to bee like civill Corporations as if persons were to bee admitted into it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment I reply you carnally and sinfully judge of Gods wayes in this particular for is it not evident that the Jewish Church was in this like civill corporations were not children then admitted in by birth-right and yet was not grace then as free as it is now had the Jewes by birth no seale of grace and that by Covenant because God was the God of them and their seed or was there no grace accompanying the Jewish Sacraments I suppose you are not so Popish as to deny it And further I pray you tell mee was not all done among them as much by the free election of grace as among us are you of Arminius his mind that Iacob and Esaâ— both circumcised persons are not proposed to us Rom. 9. as such who hold forth to us the soveraigntie of God in election and reprobation Secondly what meane you when you say all is done in the Church according to the fâ—â—â— election of grace T is true if you meane it of the Church invisible all is there done by the free election of grace but wee are speaking of the visible Church and I hope you will not say all is there done by free election of grace you will not say that none have any interest in the visible priviledges but onely they who are elected You adde yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other kingdomes is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Reynolds in his conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Patriarchs Metropolitans c. and this is say you the reason of invocation of Saints c. I reply true for men to say thus it must be or thus it may bâ—e in Godâ— kingdome because it is so in other kingdomes is the very Seminary which Dr. Reynolds speaks of but to mention some things alike in Gods Kingdome and other kingdomes when God himselfe hath made them so it is obedience and not presumption Yea it is a great sinne to call that a carnall imagination which is Gods owne doing Next when I say if hee take a father into Covenant hee takes the children in with him if hee reject the parents the children are east out with them You answer if I meane this in respect of election and reprobation it is not true or in respect of the Covenant of grace which is congruous to election or reprobation I answer you judge right I meant it not of election or reprobation nor that the saving graces of the Covenant are alwayes made good either to Infants or growne men who are taken into Covenant I meant it as before I expressed it of taking in into a visible Church-standing But say you neither is that true it is not true in respect of outward Ordinances the father may bee baptized and not the child and è contra the father may bee deprived and the child may enjoy them I answer but this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing that is in question betwixt us the contrary whereunto I undertake to justifie Indeed de sacto the one may enjoy them and the other hee deprived of them a father may bee baptized and his child die before it bee baptized but our question is de jure whether a Parent being a beleever his child hath not right to Baptisme and other Church-priviledges as it growes copable of them at the â—ewâ—s children had to Circumcision c. De sacto it fell out sometimes so among the Jewes David the â—ather circumcised and not the child borne to him by Bathsheba which dyed the seventh day and was not Circumcised and many multitudes more in the same condition but is this any thing against the right of Infants to beâ— Circumcised Next say you In this point there i◠〈◊〉 certaintie or agreement in the paedobaptists determination becausâ— Mr. Rutherford saies the children of Papists and excommunicate Protestants which are barne
have their Governours shew them the way but I forbeare In your second Section you except against Augustine his judgement because he held that Infants without baptisme must bee damned by reason of originall sinne which is not taken away but by baptisme I grant that Augustine and some others of the Ancients pressed baptizing of Infants upon that ground but not onely upon that ground and they did most presse that ground when they had to doe with Heretiques denying originall sinne to be conveighed from parents to their children yet they maintained Paedo-Baptisme upon other sound grounds as formerly I have proved therefore this exception is of no vilidity nor was this Augustines constant Doctrine yea it was a Doctrine which hee retracted as an errour as shall afterwards appeare Againe you say that you cannot finde among the Ancients the ground that I goe upon that the Covenant of grace belongs to beleevers and their seede What if you have not found it will you therefore say it is not to be found in their writings Bernardus non vidit omnia why may not some things in the vast monuments of Antiquity passe unseene by you though you have seene much and thinke that you have seene more truth then all the Ancients did and can censure what they say at your pleasure But if you did find this in the writings of the Antients it would make nothing for or against me who have not placed Infant-baptisme upon that ground because they placed it so I have asserted that ground from the Scripture as afterwards God willing shall bee made good But that they also even many of the ancients pressed Baptisme upon the sound grounds which wee doe I have made it appeare out of severall writings As for the judgement of Bellarmine Aquinas and others quoted by you I will not trouble my selfe in answering for them they were not alledged by me neither will I stand to their judgement In your third Section you bid mee consider of Augustine his judgement holding it necessary for Infants to receive the Lords Supper that opinion is nothing to our question in debate before us therefore you can expect no answer from mee to it for I never pleaded it But what is your Argument from hence Augustine held it fit to give Infants the Lords Supper Ergo What draw a conclusion to hurt me if you can our question being whether Infants were baptized in his dayes Fourthly you tell me that Augustine held a certainety of Regeneration by Baptisme and he makes no question of the Regeneration of Infants c. I confesse that sometimes hee sayes so yet at other times as I told you before hee sayes there are some qui rem baptismi absque Sacramento baptismi consequentur So also did Ambrose comforting Valentinian his sisters upon his death for hee died whilst Ambrose was on his journey comming to Baptize him where he said of him Quem in Evangelio geniturus eram amisi sed ille non amisit gratiam quam poposcit vita jam fruitur aeterna qui habuit speculum tuum Sancte pâ—ter quomodo non accepit gratiam tuam hee speakes confidently of his eternall estate though unbaptized yet Ambrose as well as Augustine at other times attributed too much to outward Baptisme Fiftly you scorne his judgement in defending questions put to Infants at their Baptisme and answerd by others That 's enough to me to prove that Infants were then baptized though I will not take upon me to justifie that custome of putting forth questions to them who by reason of their age were not able to returne an answer possibly I could tell you how and that many other customes crept into the Church but because it is not to our purpose I forbeare Lastly you say it is apparent out of that Epistle of Augustine That Infants whether borne of Beleevers or of such as had not received the Christian faith were baptized neither doe â—â— in that justifie him you may take notice that here againe you confesse the question that Infants were baptized But because you make such a great matter of it that it must needs follow that they rejected covenant-holinesse or the birth-priviledge of beleevers Infants because they baptized other Infants if brought unto them I reply that you cannot bee ignorant that many learned men deny this consequence because they conceive that not onely such as are borne of Christian parents might bee baptized but that other Infants also if any Christian would undertake to traine them up in Christs Schoole might bee admitted into it by Baptisme you know many of the reformed Divines thinke this lawfull who yet plead covenant-holinesse as further warrant why beleevers children not onely may but ought to be Baptized and Tertullian pleads both these grounds in the place I quoted at large both prerogative of birth and benefit of education Furthermore many of the Rabbines say that the children of Gentiles might bee circumcised if a Jew would bring him up in Religion yet they all hold a birth-priviledge of Jewes children for Circumcision I alledge all this to shew that you should not thus vilifie and scorne their practise and grounds without a more cleare refutation of them then yet you have made whether that which hath beene spoken out of Cyprians Epistle and Augustines approbation of it doe not advantage my cause whether they have not proved as much as I alledged them for I leave to the judicious and impartiall Reader To all the forenamed Authors I added Hierome and Ambrose his testimonies to prove the same here you confesse that they were of the same judgement with Augustine in our question therefore you conceive your answer to Augustine his testimony to be a sufficient answer to them also in like manner I referre you to my reply to your former answer Your last Section of this Chapter is a Recollection of what you have already alleadged both for the invalidating of the testimonies brought by me to prove the practise of Infant-baptisme as also of what you have brought to induce an opinion that there was no such thing practised in the first and best Antiquity You must give me leave to recollect what I have already answered to these exceptions and allegations as for your Vives and Strabo I shall give you my thoughts of them anon You confesse I brought these testimonies onely to prove the practise of Infant-Baptisme and that you cannot deny they prove onely you adde they rather prove the thing an errour then a truth because practised upon such erroneous grounds As the necessitie of Baptisme to salvation The certaintie of the Remission of originall sinne The denying of Baptisme unto none But are these the onely proofes by which the Ancients did assert the baptizing of Infants I have proved that notwithstanding some of them owned that corrupt ground and pleaded it especially in the heate of disputation yet they baptized them upon the same grounds which we doe Doe not Tertullian Cyprian c.
are these Filii carnis Apostolo hoc loco sunt qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consectantur not consequuntur so that the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne is whether in that place namely in the 9 to the Romans the Apostle by children of the flesh doe meane such as seek righteousnesse by the Law Hoc in loco saith Arminitor the phrase is to bee so interpreted in this place No saith Mr. Bayne it is not to bee taken so in this place though it may be taken so in other places I shall set down Mr. Baynes his own words that the Reader may see how grossely you have abused me For though saith Mr. Bayne children of the flesh in some other Scripture doth note out justiciaries seeking salvation in the Law yet here the literall meaning is to be taken a child of the flesh being such a one as descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh Good Reader observe 1. That I was not expounding the 9 to the Romans and therefore did not at all meddle with the question between Arminius and Mr. Bayne 2. I am cleared by Mr. Bayne himself whom Mr. Tombes produced against me 3. The words which cleare me are within six lines of those words which Mr. Tombes cites against me whether Mr. Tombes be guilty of negligence or falshood I leave to your judgement 4. The errours of Arminius are many in the place cited and I joyne not with him in any one of them First I doe not conceive that by Word Rom. 9. 6. the Jews meant the legall Covenant but the word of promise or else the Apostle had not answered directly v. the 9. Secondly by the word Seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9. 8. as Mr. Bayne nay Arminius confesses onely Arminius saith that they were elected upon Gods forefight of their faith an Opinion wch I detest as being injurious to the free effectuall grace of God I need not instance in any other errours only draw this Corollary if God did fulfil this promise made to the seed of Abraham though God did reject so many of his seed that had the token of the Covenant in their flesh not onely from salvation but from the partaking of outward priviledges from the dignity of being accounted his people any longer then God may reject many of the seed of beleeveâ—s now under the Gospel though baptized not onely from salvation but from all Church-priviledges besides baptisme and yet make good his promise sealed in baptisme in which he engageth himselfe to be the God of beleeving Christians and their seed Fourthly Mr. Tombes speaks of Abrahams seed by celling and saith that promise I will be the God of thy seed was made good to Abraham in the calling of the Gentiles pag. 43. Now Mr. Tombes will not say that all the Gentiles were made partakers of an inward calling the Gentiles then which had but an outward calling are the seed of Abraham onely by profession say I because they are of the same profession with the spirituall seed of Abraham who are inwardly called If Mr. Tombes say that it is better to term them seed by calling then seed by profession if it bee but an outward call where lyes the difference Fifthly Mr. Bayne and Arminius are agreed that by the seed of Abraham Rom. 9. 8. is meant the elect onely Omnes filii promissionis censentur in semine nulli filii carnis censentur in sentine saith Arminius Sixthly the principall difference between Mr. Bayne and Arminius is that this elect seed was elected upon Gods foresight of their faith as Arminius would have it but I joyne with Mr. Bayne in detesting this opinion as injurious to the free and effectuall grace of God and Mr. Bayne joynes with me in confessing that in some places of Scripture they who seek to bee justified by the Law are termed children of the flesh To conclude this of Arminius I wonder you should seek to cast an odiâ—â— upon my expression as you do here and severall other times by saying it's a joyning with Arminius when you know well enough that you joyne not onely in an expression or two but in this your very doctrine of opposing Paedo-baptisme with that monster Servenus and other like him Lastly you are much more stumbled and offended that Mr. Blake should say There yet remaines in the Church a distinction of Abrahams seed some borne after the flesh some after the spirit and that both these have a Church interest or a 〈◊〉 bright to Church priviledges and that â—ee for this alledged Gal. 4. 29. even so it is now c. I reply for my part I as much wonder at your calling these passages very grosse for though it bee granted 1. That the Apostle shews Ishmael to be intended as a type of civill justiciaries who sought righteousnesse by the law Yea and 2. that these persecuted the true Church who sought justification by Christ And 3. That they are cast out from being heires never to partake of the spirituall priviledges of the Covenant yet because it is apparent that even these who Paul said were typified by the son of Hagar had a visible standing in the Jewish Church and were partakers of outward Church priviledges and were the same of whom Paul speaks Rom. 10. 3. Who being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their own righteousnesse have not submitted themselves unto the righteousnesse of God And that in the same place Paul himself saith even so it is now even in the Church of Gallatia it was so and Paul by this Doctrine laboured to make them better I see not why Mr. Blake might not use this as an argument that some have a visible Church membership and ought to partake of outward Church priviledges notwithstanding they will not have the inheritance of children unlesse they repent The thing which I conceive offends you in his expression is that hee thinkes there is a fleshly seed of Abraham but I know no reason of stumbling at that phrase since by flesh is there intended any thing which is our own whatever we put confidence in and leane upon as that which may commend us to God whether our birth or parts our understanding or morall vertue yea or our Religious duties and performancâ—s all are but flesh and this St. Paul plainly signifies Phil. 3. 3 c. We are the Circumcision which worship God in the spirit and put no confidence in the flesh and in the verse following he tells you what he meant by flesh viz. his birthright his circumcision his unblameable conversation c. And might not Mr. Blake safely say there is still a seed of these who are visible members My second conclusion was to this effect Ever since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the Kingdome Citie and Household
right a visible prâ—fessor hath to bee received and reputed to belong to the visible Church quâ— visible professoâ— that right hath his child so to bee esteemed now all know the spirituall part and priviledges of the Covenant of grace belongs not to visible professors as visible but onely to such among them who are inwardly such as their externall profession holds out but yet there are outward Church-priviledges which belong to them as they are visible professors as to be reputed the sonnes of God Gen. 6. 1. the sonnes of God saw the daughters of men Deut. 14. 1. ye are the children of the Lord your God and Paul writing to a visible Church Gal. 3. 26. saith yea are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus yet I suppose you doe not thinke that all the Galatians were inwardly so so likewise to bee reputed children of the kingdome Matth. 8. 12. the children of the kingdome shall bee cast out the children of the Covenant Act. 3. 25. yee are the children of the Covenant which God made unto our fathers and many other of their priviledges which belong to them who are Israeliteâ— in this sense viz. being by such a separation and vocation the professed people of God though they were not all heires of the spirituall part of the Covenant Saint Paul reckons up in severall places as Rom. 9. 4. to them pertaineth the adoption even to the body of that people not a spirituall adoption but the honour of being separated and reputed to bee the children of God Deut. 14. 1. and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the service of God and the promises yet of these Paul saith they were not all children of Abraham when he speaks of the spirituall seed So likewise Rom. 3. 1. afteâ— Paul had shewed Rom. â— that nothing but faith and inward holinesse gave right to the spirituall part of the Covenant and that all the externall priviledges of the Jewes who were onely Jewes in propatulo Jewes outwardly were nothing to justification before God hee then propounds this question Cap. 3. 1. What advantage then both the Jew or what profit is there of Circumcision what priviledge or gaine is it to bee a visible professor a visible member of the Jewish Church hee answers the advantage is great many wayes and instances in this one particular that the Oracles of God were deposited to them the custody and dispensation of his Ordinances which they might use as their owne treasure and thereby learne to know and feare him therefore it is called their Law John 8. 17. It is also written in your Law when the rest of the nations all that while were without God in the world and received the rule of their life from the Oracles of the Devill according to that of the Psalmist Psal 147. 10 20 He shewed his word to Iacob his statutes and his judgments to Israel hee hath not dealt so with any nation and as for his judgements they have not knowne them So Deut. 33. 4. The Law is called the inheritance of the Congregation of Iacob And although it bee true that these visible and externall priviledges will end with the greater condemnation of them who live and die in the abuse of them while they rest in Cortice in the outward thing it selfe and labour not after the spirituall part yet the priviledges themselves are very great It is no small mercy to have a membership or visible standing in that societie where salvation is ordinary this our blessed Saviour told the woman of Samaria Iohn 4. 22. Salvation is of the Iewes this was the priviledge which the Church of the Jewes had above the Samaritans that salvation was to bee found in their way and God in his wisedome hath so ordained it to have his visible Church made up of such I meane so as to have some of them inwardly holy and others of them by externall profession onely for this reason among many others that there might bee some who should from time to time bee converted by the Ordinances dispensed in his Church as well as others who should be built up that the Pastors which hee sets up to feed his flocke should not onely bee nursing fathers to build up but also fathers to beget sonnes and daughters to him and though all are bound de jure to bee inwardly holy who joyne to the Church yet would hee have his Church admit those who professe their willingnesse to bee his that hee by his discipline might make them inwardly such as they externally professe themselves and as yet are not in truth as into a Schoole are admitted not onely such as are actually learned but such as are dedicated to be learned not onely quia docti sed ut sint docti and who ever will deny this that there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible membership who onely partake of the visible priviledges must deny that any are visible members who are not inwardly converted which I thinke you will doe but lest you or any other should I shall at the present back it onely with that speech of the Apostle Rom. 11. where Paul speakes of some branches grassed into the Olive and afterwards broken off not onely the Iewes whom hee calleth the naturall branches were broken off but the Gentiles also the Gentile Churches who were graffed in in their roome and were made partakers of the roote and fatnesse of the Olive even they also may bee broken off if they beleeve not and God will no more spare these branches then hee did the other now this cannot bee meant of any breaking off from the invisible Church from partaking of the spirituall roote and fatnesse of the Olive from this neither Jew nor Gentile are ever broken off it were Arminianisme to the purpose to affirme the contrary it must therefore bee meant onely of a visible standing and externall participation of Church-priviledges and if you thinke otherwayes that none of old were nor now are visible members of the Church or had right to externall Church priviledges unlesse they were inwardly sanctified I beseech you in your next to cleare this and open our eyes with your evidence that wee may see it with you and in stead of leading your Reader into a maâ—e by framing multitudes of senses the like produce some solid arguments to shew and prove that no other but true beleevers may in fore visibiâ—â—â— Ecclâ—siae bee reckoned to belong to the Church and people of God But I suppose in this particular you will hardly deny a lawfulnesse of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession and that rightly even by a judgement of faith though their inward holinesse be unknown to us for so much you grant pag. 159. and if by a judgement of faith a Minister as Gods Steward may dispence the seale of the Covenant of grace and not stay from applying the seale
of Satan Hee would have Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to bee accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devills So much weight lies upon this Conclusion and it so neerely concernes you to make at least a shew of overthrowing it that in 40 Pages and upward you try all your wits and artifices to shake the strength of it by scornefull speeches by clouding and darkning what was expressed plainely by framing senses and confuting what was never asserted nor intended by Bringing in at the by opinions of other men and disputing against them by alledging the Testimonies of some eminently learned men when they are nothing to the purpose in hand and by seeking to elude the strength of my arguments In all these I shall attend you and endeavour to cleare what you would seeme to have obscure briefly to passe over what is impertinent and chiefly buckle with you in that which concernes the cause in hand First you tell me this conclusion is a bâ—â—kin that may bee put on either leg right or left exprest so ambiguously that you know not in what sense to take it Truely Sir you take a course to make it seeme so I knew a man in Cambridge that went for a great Scholler whose remarkable facultie was so to expound a Text as to make a cleare Text darke by his interpretation even thus have you dealt with a plaine Conclusion you bring first three sorts of senses then you subdivide them and under each of them bring severall Imaginable senses foure or five under one head five or six under another head and then blame me that I have not distinctly set downâ— in which of these senses Infants of Beleevers belong to the Covenant whether in respect of Election or of a promise of grace in Christ whether potentially or actually whether they are so to bee accounted by an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of haritie or prudence or probable hopes for the future thus you expresse your skill in multiplication of senses But I reply that hee that runs may reade my sense and with the tenth part of the paines you have taken to fasten a sense upon it which I never thought upon might confidently have concluded that I meant of a visible priviledge in facie visibilis Ecelesiae or have their share in the faedus externum which my words plainely enough held forth when I spake of Gods separating a number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie Household in apposition to the rest of the world which is the Devills Kingdome and afterwards in the same Conclusion God having left all the rest of the world to bee visibly the Devills Kingdome although among them many belong to his invisible kingdome as being of the number of his elect he will not permit the Devill to come and lay visible claime to the off-spring of those who are begotten of the children of the most High is not this plaine enough that as all they who by externall vocation and profession joyne to the Church of God though few of those many so called are elected have a visible right to bee esteemed members of the Church Kingdom of God which is a visible Corporation distinct and opposite to the rest of the world which is visibly the corporation and kingdom over which the Devill doth reign So God would have their children even while they are children to enjoy the same priviledge with them what Delian Diver is there any need of to fetch up the meaning of this But that you may no longer complaint of not understanding my sense I say plainly The Covenant of grace is sometime taken strictly sometime largely as it is considered strictly it is a Covenant in which the spirituall benefits of justification regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ Secondly as the Covenant of grace is taken largely it compâ—â—hendss all Evangelicall administrations which doe wholly depend upon the free and gratious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsell of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in typeâ— shadowes and other legall Ordinances this Covenant of administration God said Zâ—â—â—ary 11. 10. hâ—â— did 〈◊〉 with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ hee did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration which wee live under where also hee rejected the Jews or booke them off from being his people in Covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramâ—rum defractorum locum into the place of the branches broken off as your selfe page 65. doe with Beza rightly expresse it Now according to this different acceptation of the Covenant are men differently said to bee in covenant with God or to be members of his Church and family some are mysticall members by inward grace the inward grace of the Covenant being bestowed upon them being made new creatures c. others are members in regard of the externall and visible aeconomy accordingly among the Jewes some were said to bee Abrahams seed according to the promise and not onely after the flesh who had the Circumcision of the heart as well as that which was outward others were Jewes in propatulo Jewes onely in foro visibilis ecolesia and in like manner is it under the Evangelicall administration in the Christian Church some are in Christ by mysticall 〈◊〉 so as to bee regenerate c. 1 Cor. 6. 17. 2 Cor. 5. 17. others are said to bee in Christ by visible and externall profession as branches which beare no fruite Iohn 15. 2. and these also are called branches of the Vine though such branches as for unfruitfulnesse shall at last bee cut off and cast away and often times tells us many are called but few are chosen Unto both these do belong great priviledges though the priviledgâ—â— of the one be saving the other not as shall by and by appeare Furthermore according to this different notion of the Covenant grounded upon the different manner of mens being in Christ there are also different Sâ—ales belonging unto the Covenant some peculiar and proper onely unto those who are in Covenant spiritually a quoâ—d substantiam et gratiâ—â— faeâ—â—ris as the testimony and Seale of the Spirit 2 Cor. 1. 2â— Ephes 1. 13. 14. 30. Rom. 8. 16. others common and belonging unto all who are in the visible body and branches of Christ the Vine in any relation and so in Covenant quoad 〈…〉 till by scandalous 〈◊〉 which are 〈◊〉 with that very outward dignitie and profession they cut themselves off from that relation and such are the visible and externall Seales annexed to the externall profession among Christians as the Jewish Seales were to those who were Jewes externally When therefore I say they are visibly to bee reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents I meane looke what