the other of the Chaldee Paraphrase R. Solomon Symmachus that they are called Sons of God because Sons of Potentates or Judges of which Mr. Cartwright ubi supra and that of others Sons of God that is eminent men because I think the other is more right however they are not called Sons of God that is visible Church-members by their descent but by their profession which is not to be said of infants It is true Ezek. 16.28 21. the children of Israel are said to be born to God that is of right as their Land was the Lords Land Hos. 9.3 and this did aggravate their sin that those that were of right his were sacrificed to Idols now this was by reason of that peculiar interest which God had in that people vers 8. But that what is said of the sons of the Jews is true of all the infants of believers or that this is enough to entitle the infants of Christians to visible Church-membership and the initial seal as they call it is yet to be proved Of Mal. 2.14 15. I have spoken sufficiently in the first part of this Review Sect. 13.26 of the Ample Disquisition to which I add that in the second Edition of the New Annot. these words are added suitable to my Exposition of a legitimate seed All other seed is spurious not a lawfull seed nor such fathers are lawfull fathers who so pervert the order and Ordinance of Matrimony God puts his mark of infamy upon the seed it self Deut. 23.2 which shews that with Calvin that Authour understood by a Seed of God a legitimate seed That which is said Psalm 22.30 A seed shall serve him it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation hath no shew of any thing for infants visible Church-membership it cannot be expounded of infants while such for how can it be said They shall serve the Lord But it notes onely a continuance of the Church promised in a people who should when some decease stand up after them to serve the Lord. The impertinency of that Jer. 30.20 is shewed before As little to the purpose is that Psalm 116.16 He doth not say he was the Lords Servant as he was the son of his handmaid and it was to express his mean condition or humility as Mary Luke 1.48 not his privilege and his subjection to God not his right he could clame from God yet if there were any privilege imported in this title son of thine hand-maid Mr. Church must prove it to be Church-membership and that not proper to him as a Jew but common to all Christians ere it will serve his turn which he cannot do Enough is said before in the Ample Disquition to prove that 1 Cor. 7.14 children are not denominated holy because they appertain to the Church The remnant to be called holy Isai 4.3 are either such Jews as in the captivity escaped alive who should be holy in respect of their worship not serving Idols but the living God or such converted believers in the Christian Church as should be written in the Book of Life which makes nothing to infants Church-membership The Church is not called the circumcision Rom. 3.30 15.8 but the Jewish people The Christians infants are not rightly judged to be of the Church Christian because the Hebrews children were of the Church Jewish God now not taking one whole Nation for his Church but Disciples of Christ in all Nations Abraham is said Rom. 4.11 to have received the sign of circumsion a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised but that any other mans circumcision was so to him much less that every infants circumcision was such to them I reade not sure the tenour of the words imports no more than this that Abrahams circumcision in his own person was an assurance to all believers though themselves uncircumcised of righteousness by faith to be imputed to them also What Divines though of never so great esteem thence infer of the nature of circumcision that it is a seal of the righteousness of faith of all Sacraments that it is their nature to be seals of the covenant of grace that to whom the covenant belongs to them the seal belongs and consequently to infants are but their mistakes not the Doctrine of the Text. Of Mark 10.14 enough is said before Of infants may be the Kingdom of God yet they not in the visible Church The speech out of the Church is no salvation is true of the invisible Church of the elect and is so expounded by Dr. Morton Apol. Cath. and others of the visible it is not true Rahab had been saved though she had never been joyned to the visible Church of the Jews What I said that it is uncertain whether the infants brought to Christ Mark 10.14 were the infants of Christian disciples or believers is true for it is not said their Parents brought them and though it be probable they that brought them believed on Christ yet it is uncertain whether they believed him to be the Christ or some eminent Prophet as Matth. 16.14 Luke 7.16 The Daughter of the Syrophoenician was called a Dog Matth. 15.26 not because she was not a believers childe but because a Gentiles childe not an Israelitess Though Diâ—t 30.6 Isai 44.3 Circumcision of the heart and the spirit be promised to the seed of the godly yet it is not promised to any but the elect as the fuller promise Isai. 54.13 is expounded by Christ himself John 6.45 and therefore not as Mr. Church saith to children as they are the children of Gods People if as be taken reduplicatively for then all the children of Gods People should have the spirit promised Nor is the spirit promised to them in their infancy and yet if it were till they shew it we have no warrant to take them for visible Church-members or to baptize them without special revelation It is largely proved above that Acts 15.10 no infant is called a Disciple There may be hope of infants salvation they may be of the body of Christ though they be not of the visible Church Our infants and our selves though believers are yet Heathens that is of the Nations by birth and had been reputed Dogs as well as the Woman of Canaans childe Matth. 15.26 if we had then lived but in the sense as it is now used and as it was a Title of infamy and rejection Matth. 18.17 we are not to be called Heathens that is infidels and whose society is to be shunned nor our infants who are neither infidels nor believers they being not capable of faith in that state ordinarily as in Logick they say a Whelp till the ninth day is neither blinde nor seeing there being a middle of abnegation of either extreme by reason of the incapacity of the subjects so we may say our infants are neither infidels nor believers What Mr. Church allegeth out of Rev. 22.15 serves onely to beget hatred towards Antipaedobaptists for without there is
intimating such a command we are not bound to do the like in the one as we do in the other As for the sixth Argument That nothing can be soundly collected from the scriptures against infant-baptism the contrary hath appeared above in the second part of this Review Sect 5. c. what he grants that it may be soundly gathered that all of riper years should be discipled before baptism from the commission Matth. 28.19 doth also prove that they had no Commission to baptize any but discipled persons and so none but those of riper years not infants unless there be shewed some other Commission which is not to be found in the Scripture but only in corrupt tradition of antiquity and the Jewish arguings of latter Divines and is not yet found any other then will-worship To all which Mr. Church further brings answer is made before the vindicating of my objections will most fitly come in the reply to Masters Marshalls Defence to which I shall hasten after the dispatch of some few other Authors SECT XII Doctor Featley his argument for Infant-baptism from the Covenant is examined MR. Rutherford is another of the Authors whose writing Mr. Baxter tells yet remains to be answered But I know not any writing of his in which he doth directly dispute against Anti-paedobaptists I confess I have met with a dispute against those of the Congregational way of Discipline in his Peaceable and temperate Plea c. 12. q. 12. for denying baptism to those infants whose next parent is not a known believer in some gathered Church who yet do hold and practise baptism of such infants whose next parent is a Church-member But that dispute going only against them and upon his grounds denied and refuted by me elsewhere it were out of my way to answer what he saith there If there be any other writing of his I presume some one or other of the Antagonists I refute have the strength of it yet I intend if such a one do occurre to me to give account of it as I shall find meet Mr. Robert Baillee is another to whose writing Mr. B. points me But his first Argument I have already enervated in the Addition to my Apology in my letter to him and answering his three first criminations especially the third and have shewed sect 1. that he doth but calumniate when he charges us to affirm That no infants have any place in the Covenant of grace or any Gospel promises till they be called by the word and by an actual faith have embraced the Gospel What other arguments he brings are answered either in answering Others that bring the same or it s intended shall be answered in fit place There are many others who have written of this argument in the English tongue each of which forms his Argument from the Covenant to the initial seal from infant circumcision to infant-baptism with some difference in terms or phrasifying though in effect all of them are reduced into the three forms in the 1 2 3. sect of my Exercitation and rest on these false principles that interest in the Covenant of grace was the adequate reason of a persons title to circumcision and is the adequate reason of a persons title to baptism and that there is the like reason of baptizing infants of believers as of circumcising infants of Abraham by virtue of the like interest in the Covenant though there be not the like command for the one as for the other nevertheless that it may not be said I have neglected any thing conceived worth answering or to have slighted any of their labours I shall briefly answer the Arguments of such as have come to my hands and then more largely answer Mr. Geree Mr. Marshall Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter who have opposed my writings taking in others by the way as I see fit Dr. Featley is one that hath been a Leader of the Prelatical party and is judged by them to have proved Paedobaptism learnedly His dispute is in his Dipper dâ—pt p. 46. arg 5. thus All they who are comprized within the Covenant and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to receive it But children are comprized within the Covenant of faith whereof circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11 and now baptism is Ergo children may and ought to receive Baptism Of the Major or first Proposition there can be no doubt for it is unjust to deprive a Man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right or title And for the Minor or Assumption it is as cleer for so are the words of the Covenant Gen. 17.17 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee Against which I except first That the Syllogism is many waies faulty 1. That he puts in the Conclusion children as all one with infants 2. That in the Conclusion there is this term not exprest in the Major may and ought to receive baptism for that which is in the Major may and ought to receive the seal of the Covenant is not all one with may and ought to receive baptism baptism and seal of the Covenant being not equipollent besides Circumcision passeover Lords Supper the Ephesians are said to be sealed with the holy spirit of promise Ephes. 1.13 nor is the term seal of the Covenant applyed to Sacraments any other than a novel expression neither used in Scripture nor the Antients Rom. 4.11 doth not term circumcision much less other Sacraments as they are called a seal of the Covenant of faith as the Doctor misallegeth it but a seal of the Righteousness of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised Whence it appears that it was a Seal of what he had not of a covenant concerning what he was to have and this is said onely of Abrahams circumcision with such an observing of particularizing circumstances as shew it to be appropriated to Abrahams circumcision what ever is said of circumcisions being a seal of the righteousness of faith however Divines dictate to the contrary and therefore what the Doctor addes in the Minor which multiplies the terms in the Syllogism and now baptism is asserting thereby baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of faith is said without proof though I should not stick to grant it in this sense that to the true believer his baptism assures righteousness according to Gods Covenant and the true believer by baptism gives testimony or assurance of his faith according to his Covenant as being unwilling to wrangle about terms if we agree in the meaning But in the sense Paedobaptists use it as containing the nature of a Sacrament I shall reject it in that which followes 3. Against the Doctors omission of some words in the Minor and are no where prohibited to receive the seal therof which were in the Major 4. That the term and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof is ambiguous For it may be understood either of an express
interest suspended But 1. still Mr. Blake speaks of the Lords Supper and of baptism as of privileges meerly whereas the Scripture speaks of each as a duty as well as a privilege 2. By the same distinction an answer is given to him concerning infants baptism that though they have the right to it yet by reason of infancy the actual interest of it is to be suspended they being no more able to profess the faith till they be grown to some riper age then a Cradle King to rule a Kingdome So that Mr. Blakes answers yield more exceptions against Mr. Ms. argument confirm it not at al but shew how we may grant his Major and yet so limit it that it will be too short of proving baptism of federate persons in infancy and these passages of Master Blake appear to be Cavils and not Anâ—wers He next sets upon the fifth section of the first part of my Review and excepts 1. That I shew not where to find Mr. Baillees words But if he had looked into my Letter mentioned he had found them quickly in the third section 2. That I denyed the Metaphor of a seal to be rightly made the genus of a rite as of baptism to which he replies in his flirting fashion We shall expect another letter to shew Saint Pauls definition Rom. 4.11 to be alike light who runs upon the same errour if an errour when he saies that Circumcision is a sign and seal there is the genus and the differentia lies in these words to distinguish it from other signs and seals of the righteousness of faith The nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure and the whole efficacy of it in the use And how else then should the nature and use of it be held out To which I answer Paul doth not give a definition Rom. 4.11 of circumcision much less doth he define a Sacrament in general Every Definition is reciprocal with the thing defined but Mr. Bl. I presume will not say every circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith and every seal of the righteousness of faith is circumcision Besides individuals are not wont to be defined but what is there said is said of the singular circumcision of Abraham and no other The title given to Abrahams circumcision doth but shew what the use of it was to him not what was the constant nature and use of it on and to others Which appears from the particularizing circumstances so exactly noted by the Apostle to wit the times of his justification and circumcision which do shew that it was appropriated to Abrahams circumcision on his own body what he there said of Circumcision There is no more reason to make this the definition of Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith then to make that 1 Tim 6.10 the root of all evil the definition of the love of money or that Heb. 6.16 the end of all strife the definition of an oath or that v. 19. the anchor of the soul firm and stable the definition of hope or that Heb. 11.1 the evidence of things not seen the definition of faith A seal cannot be the genus of it being a Metaphor for a Metaphor shews not what it is but what it is like Circumcision is an action as it is from the agent as in the subject a passion The relation that comes to it is not from its nature but by institution and is the end of it rather than the genus rather for what it is than what it is A seal is an artificial body compound of a substance and figure which cannot be said of Circumcision What Mr. Bl. saith that the nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure cannot be true of such a figure as is in a Seal for so baptism the Passeover the Lords Supper should be no Sacrament sith they do not make any figure on the body nor of figure of speech for so a Sacrament should not be a visible sign but an audible I grant the use of it is to resemble by a visible sign some other thing as the breaking bread Christs body broken and in that sense it may be called a figure as Augustine called the bread the figure of Christs body But the use belongs to the difference to distinguish it from the same action or passion used to another purpose not to the genus And yet sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith cannot be the difference to distinguish a Sacrament from the preaching of the Gospel for the preaching of the Gospel by word or writing is a sign or seal of the righteousness of faith What is said Rom. 4.11 that Abraham received the sign of circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith is not all one with this a seal of the Covenant of grace For it is added which he had yet being uncircumcised and therefore was a sign not of a promise or covenant concerning a thing to be done but of a thing accomplished or already done I see not how Rom. 4.11 either the general nature of a Sacrament or the special nature of circumcision may be said to be defined Nor do I conceive it true which Mr. Bl. saith the whole efficacy of a Sacrament is in the use I suppose baptism and the Lords Supper have their efficacy in comforting moving to holiness love c. after the use The nature and use of a Sacrament may be otherwise held out then Mr. Bl. doth which I now omit It is sufficient at present to shew the emptiness of Mr. Bls. dictates And for my rejecting of the common use of the terms of seals of the Covenant and initial seals as Synonymous to sacraments and baptism especially in disputes wherein proper terms should be used I have given sufficient reason from the abuses of Paedobaptists inferring errours from a late devised term and imposing on mens consciences yet I profess if baptism were granted to be a seal or initial seal that I think that it would not follow that it hath that relation to the Covenant that infants in Covenant must not be denied it but that it is a frivolous argument infants are in covenant therefore they must have the initial seal of the Covenant for which if I had no other reason yet that one of Mr. Bl. that though a person be in Covenant and have right to the seal yet he is not to have it till the appointed time it were sufficient to justifie my censure Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech that to have the promise and to be a disciple or believer are not all one for he conceives to have a promise in Scripture phrase is to possesse it as those Jews after the flesh did possess Rom. 9.4 And how to possesse a promise without faith he doth not yet understand Whereto I reply that I find the term promise used in Scripture sometimes metonymically for the thing promised as Lukeâ—4 â—4 49 when Christ saith I send the promise of the Father upon you he means
be blessed from access to him As for Mr. Bls. question who say that the covenant of grace without any other command is a command to baptize infants I think Mr. Stephens said it when he made a convertibility between the word of promise and the word of command and whereas Mr. Bl. saith if Christ had never given a command for it neither old nor young ought to have been baptized it is true nor in my speech of his and Mr. Stephens tenet did I mean when I said without any other command to exclude the institution of baptism but it being supposed to be instituted by Christ Paedobaptists do frequently prove a command to baptise infants by vertue of being in covenant without any particular command of baptizing them or any other description that comprehends them as Mr. Marshalls first argument in his Sermon Mr. Bls. second argument Vindic. foed chap. 43. sect 1. sâ—â—w Mr. Geree calls denying infant-baptism A defalking the Covenant and Mr. Bl. himself maintains the third speech that the command to baptize disciples is all one as to command to baptize persons in covenant when he saith p. 335. every disciple is in covenant and everyone in covenant is a disciple And for his Arguments asserting that infants are of Christs disciples what I have met with either are answered already in the second part of this Review or will be answered in this part iâ— God permit my conceit being still more confirmed by fuller examination of them that they are very frivolous SECT XX. The exceptions which in the first part of my Review sect 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the covenant and initial seal are confirmed against Mr. Blake vindic foed 42. ch sect 3. Mr. Bl. proceeds to vindicate the proofs for the reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal from Gen. 17. and Acts 2.38 39. from my Answers And to my answer that the particle rendered therefore Gen. 17.9 may be rendered and or but thou he saith 1. we have no reason but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative and being an illative particle he hath no exception against the strength of it Whereto I reply There need be no reason given why it should be read and or but and not therefore but this that either of those are the usual acceptions of the particle that and is the most frequent use of it that it may well be so in that place and that learned interpreters do so render it Which being not denyed there is no strength in that proof which is made barely from the term therefore Gen. 17.9 to infer that to them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or the Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace For he that will prove from it must assert that it must be rendered therefore for a certain conclusion cannot be inferred from an uncertain medium Whereas Mr Bl. only asserts it may be an illative as well as a copulative particle and not that it must be he intimates a grant of what I answer that it may be a copulative as well as an illative particle What he adds that it being an illative particle I have no exception against the strength of it is manifestly untrue sith I added three more exceptions against the proof of that proposition from thence But Master Blake proves the same from verse 10. taking in Acts 7.8 and would have me at more leisure find answer to this argument That which God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it but God calls circumcision by the name of a covenant Ergo they ought not to be separated To which I answer First if the Conclusion be good then circumcision and the Covenant ought not to be separated but the covenant according to Master Marshall Master Blake c. remains the same therfore according to Master Blake circumcision ought to remain still to our children they being in covenant Secondly If the Conclusion were good then the females and males afore the eight day being in covenant must be circumcised Thirdly The conclusion is neither of those propositions which were to be proved to wit 1. That the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the Covenant For though it were granted that circumcision and the covenant ought not to be separated yet it proves not the reason of this conjunction to be from interest in the covenant sith it may be yea is indeed to be deduced from the command 2. To them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace For the Conclusion of Mr. Bl. doth not say any thing at all concerning the initial seal of the Christian Church but only of circumcision Fourthly To his Syllogism I answer 1. That God calls circumcision the Covenant only by a metonymia of the thing signified for the sign 2. That ought not to be separated from it may be understood of every person that hath interest in the covenant or of every person to whom it is commanded and when it is not dispensed with in the former sense I deny the major it is not true that what God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it or that Gods calling any sign the Covenant proves that all in covenant are to have that sign on them For neither was it true of circumcision sith neither were males afore the eight day or females in covenant nor any in the wilderness to be circumcised God either not commanding it or dispensing with the observation of it nor is it true of any other sign called the Covenant if there be any without Gods command undispensed with Mr. Blake saith further 2. Let him consider the relation in which the Apostle puts this Sacrament of circumcision to the covenant Rom. 4.11 an instituted appointed sign and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seals circumcision was an instituted appointed sign and seal of the covenant therefore it is not to be divided from it Answ. 1. Neither doth the Apostle Rom. 4.11 make circumcision the sign and seal of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. nor of any covenant to be kept for the time to come but of a benefit Abraham had before obtained Gen. 15.6 to wit righteousness by faith being yet uncircumcised nor is any ones circumcision besides Abrahams on his own person called the seal of the righteousness of faith 2. The Conclusion is neither of the Propositions to be proved that the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the covenant that to them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or the Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace 3. The Major proposition is true in this sense an
instituted appointed sign and seal is not to be divided in our conceit of it from that object or thing which it signifies or seals But in this sense the Conclusion would be true only of an intellectual division from the object which is nothing to the purpose That sense in which it would be to his purpose is this An instituted appointed sign and seal is not to be divided that is not to be withheld or denied to any person or subject who hath by promise or possession interest in the thing signifyed and sealed by that sign But in this sense it is false for circumcision was not to be to any female to whom yet the promise of Canaan signified by it belonged Nor indeed doth any such sign belong to any person meerly from interest in the thing signified but from the command and will of the Appointer I said if therefore Gen. 17.9 were allowed to be the best reading yet that the inference v. 9. should be made from the promise only v. 7. and not as well if not rather from the promise verse 8. I find no sufficient reason given To this Master Blake replies This reference engageth me 1. in a contradiction to my self Exercit. page 3. the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of Circumcision and that the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. was a mixt covenant 2. In a contradiction to the Apostle who makes circumcision a sign and seal not alone of the land of Canaan but of the righteousness of faith Answ. Either I have lost all my skill in Logick or else there is not the least colour of this charge but Mr. Blake writes as one that scribles any thing that comes first into his fancy A contradiction is of two propositions opposite in quantity and quality the one universal the other particular the one affirmative the other negative my propositions are If it were granted that therfore Gen. 17.9 is the best reading yet that the inference verse 9. should be made from the promise onely verse 7. and not as well if not rather from the promise verse 8. I find no sufficient reason given the promise of the Gospel was confirmed to Abraham by the sign of Circumcision the Covenant Gen. 17. was a mixt covenant made up of spiritual and temporal mercies The Apostle Rom. 4.11 saith Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised If Master Blake shew in these propositions I will not say contradiction onely the greatest of oppositions but any contrariety at all let me be taken for a heedless Scribler if not let Master Blake bear the blame His other words all that know the nature of Covenants and use of seals know that the seal ratifies all that the Covenant contains But the Covenant Master Tombs being judge contained not barely the promise of the land of Canaan and therefore the reference must carry it further than the Land of Canaan what are they but a grant of my exception that the reference Gen. 17.9 must be not onely to the promise verse 7. as if infants were circumcised meerly because of the promise I will be a God to thee and to thy seed but also to the promise verse 8. and that they were circumcised also because of that promise of the Land of Canaan which belongs not to us and therefore the reason of circumcision of infants from the Covenant Gen. 17. can be no rule to us to whom some of those promises belong not If the seal ratifies all that the covenant contains then it ratifies the promise of the Land of Canaan and in respect of that it was to Abrahams infants which not belonging to our infants the reason of circumcising infants if it be taken from the covenant it will not pertain to our infants to whom that promise belongs not I said if it were yielded that the inference were made peculiarly from the promise verse 7. to be a God to Abraham and his seed it must be proved that every believers infant-child is Abrahams seed afore it be proved the promise belongs to them To this Master Blake saith It must either be proved that they are Abrahams children or â—ave the privilege of the children of Abraham which from Genesis 9.27 Rom. 11.17 is sufficiently proved especially being confirmed by those texts that carry the covenant in Gospel times to the issue Answ. What privilege of the children of Abraham he should mean except the promise I will be a God to them which should belong to every believers infant child I understand not The privilege of circumcision or visible Church-membership in the Christian Church is neither inferred from the promise Gen. 17.7 nor from Genesis 9.27 Rom. 11.17 nor is there one text that carries the Covenant in Gospel times I mean that covenant of which Christ is Mediator mentioned Heb. 8.10 Heb. 10.16 besides which I know no covenant in Gospel times to the issue that is all the natural infant-issue of every believer and that neither those texts mentioned nor any other produced by Mr. Bl. Mr. M. Mr. Cobbet or any other prove it will be shewed in that which follows For present my speech is right the promise is not I will be a God to thee and to thy seed and to him that hath the privilege of thy children This is Master Blakes addition to the Text. And therefore no man can prove the promise belongs to the infant-child of a believer till he be proved to be Abrahams seed Whatsoever privilege of Abrahams children any child may have yet from that promise none can claim privilege but Abraham and his seed sith the promise is made to no other and therefore no child of ours can claim an interest in that promise till he be Abrahams seed which Master Blakes shift doth no whit avoid To my exception that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham he saith Though it were true yet it would nor serve my purpose provided that we in Gospel times are under the same covenant as was Isaac if some of Abrahams children were left out that concerns not us so that we are taken in But I reply sure if it were true it were much to my purpose to shew the insufficiency of the Paedobaptists inference from Gen. 17.7 that every child of a Gentile believer is not in covenant by vertue of that promise if it be true that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham No Paedobaptist hitherto that I know hath had the face to avouch that our children by vertue of that promise are more in covenant than Abraham children Master Bl. himself saith To make the inference good from Gen. 17.7 that believers children by virtue of that promise have title to the initial seal it must either be proved that they are Abrahams children or have the privilege of Abrahams children If then the covenant was not made to every child of Abraham then every child
of a Covenant he doth not appoint it a sign and seal of a Covenant that hath no promises or wherein the persons to whom and the promises are not sufficiently exprest yet he doth command that sign to be used upon persons to whom is no promise in that covenant as well as those to whom it is made yea the using it on one person may seal to thousands who are not to have it on their own persons as the circumcising of Abraham himself was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers of the Gentiles who were not to be circumcised And if every ones Circumcision should seal to him the righteousness of faith then circumcision should by Gods appointment seal that which is not true which is not to be said of God Nor doth Mr. Blake prove from Galatians 4.30 that Ishmael was first in Covenant because he was after cast out for the casting out is not appointed to be out of the Covenant for that Abraham could not do to whom this speech is directed it is God that puts in and out of his Covenant but the casting out is out of Abrahams family which was to be done by Abraham If it be replyed that this was a sign of casting out of Covenant and therefore supposed he was in Covenant I answer so it was a sign of casting out of the inheritance out of the righteousness of faith out of the Kingdom of heaven which yet neither he nor those whom he typified and so were cast out with him ever had What he calls my dream of ejection by non-admission doth but shew Mr. Blakes own oscitancy For Matthew 8.12 it is said the children of the Kingdome that is the Jews shall be cast out to wit of the Kingdom of heaven where Abraham and Isaac and Jacob sit down into outer darknesse and yet those children of the Kingdom were never in the Kingdom of heaven nor ever should be Ishmaels casting out after the time of the Solemnity of his admission by circumcision doth not prove he was in covenant before Neither circumcision nor baptism doth admit men into covenant with God If they did then administrators could put men in and out of Covenant with God but that is Gods prerogative not in mans power Even according to Paedobaptists suppositions persons are first to be in Covenant afore they are to be baptized therfore baptism doth not admit them into Covenant Master Blake addes For that of Hebrews 11.9 it is a mystery what he will make of it unlesse he will conclude that because Abraham sojourned in the Land of promise that therefore none were in Covenant that were not taken into that Land so Moses and Aaron will be found out of Covenant To which I reply The mystery might have been unveiled if Mr. Blake had heeded that the Author of that Epistle calls onely Isaac and Jacob of those that dwelt with Abraham in tents heirs with him of the same promise therefore Ishmael and Esau were not heirs with him of the same promise though he dwelt in tents with them and consequently were not in the Covenant or had not the Covenant or promise of Abraham made to them Upon those words of mine As for a visible Church-seed of Abraham that is neither his seed by nature nor by saving faith nor by excellency in whom the nations of the Earth should be blessed to wit Christ I know none such in Scripture though some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed as it is called Master Blake thus animadverts I know not how saving faith comes in when a faith of profession will serve the turn Abrahams seed had circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith when their parents had no more than a faith of profession To which I reply a meer faith of profession will not serve turn to make any Gentile to be rightly according to the Scripture termed Abrahams seed None of them in Scripture are counted Abrahams seed but either true believers before God or elect persons No where doth the Scripture say that the Circumcision which any of Abrahams seed had was as a seal of the righteousness of faith to them when their parents were true believers much less when their parents had no more than a faith of profession Mr. Blakes talk that all that which my three former exceptions gainsaid is made good is but vain as the rest of his arguing Let us here see what he addes further I had said Lastly were all these things yielded yet the proposition could not be made good from hence sith the inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seal as if the Covenant or promise of it self did give that but the inference is concerning Abrahams duty that therefore he should be the more ingaged to circumcise his posterity Hereupon Mr. Blake tells me I should rather have left this to my adversaries for the strengthening of their proposition than have made use of it my self for refutation of it It was Abrahams duty to give them according to Gods command the initial seal in this Master Tombs and we are agreed whether it will thence follow that they had right and title to it or without right let the Reader determine Answ. The Adversaries propositions to be refuted were first That the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the Covenant which they would gather from Gen. 17.7 and 9. put together secondly That to them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace But if the inference be not of title or right in the persons to be circumcised but of duty in the administrator and the propositions be of title or right from the Covenant and not of duty the adversaries propositions are not rightly gathered from that inference which is not concerning right or title but duty As for Master Blakes jeer rather than answer it is unworthy a serious sober man For my speech did not intimate that the infants were circumcised without right or title but that the inference Gen. 17.9 was of duty not of title or right and that what title the infants had to circumcision it was not as Paedobaptists suppose from the interest in the Covenant which the circumcised had but the command of God to the circumciser and therefore there is not any connexion between interest in the Covenant and title or right to the initial seal without the command nor this proposition true All they who are in Covenant are to be sealed with the initial seal unless this limitation be added when it is commanded Now if this limitation be put then though the infants of believers were granted to be in Covenant yet they are not to be baptized till over and besides their being in Covenant a command for their baptism be shewed which hath not been yet nor I think ever will be There are some more of Mr. Blakes jeers or
and that it is verified intentionally quoad Deum is besides the text which speaks not of Gods making a covenant but of Moses v. 14. and this covenant was obliging to duty not expressing covenant-grace That which Master Cobbet saith that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant Gen. 17.7 which containeth the promise of justification was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jewes their children by Gods own appointment circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to justification hath either none or very little truth For though it be true that the promise Gen. 17.7 was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words yet it was so onely to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jewes and their children nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith but Abrahams which was not a seal as applyed by his faith to his justification but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that all that believe as he did shall be justified as he was Rom. 4.11 12. Master Cobbet addes Nor will it suffice to say that covenant was a mixt covenant It held forth temporal things indeed but by vertue of a covenant of grace Psal. 111.5 as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4.8 But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all albeit in the internal operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9.4 Scil. in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choice seed in that general covenant Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace onely and make other promises of temporal things to be onely administrations of it and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace because it was the tâ—ken of that covenant to say that 〈◊〉 covenant Gen. 17.7 was a mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter and that the reason why circumcision was appointed was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical but national or proper to the people of Abraham Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity that because there is a promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4.8 therefore the covenant now is mixt For the promise of the life that now is is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his but of fatherly care and sanctified use of outward things Nor doth Psal. 111.5 prove that the inheriting Canaan being great and prosperous Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. were by vertue of a covenant of grace but it rather appears from many places Deut. 28. c. Heb. 8.6 that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses unto which circumcision did oblige Gal. 5.3 The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abrahams seed by faith onely nor doth the Apostle any where interpret that promise Gen. 17.7 as holding forth spiritual things in the external right and administration of it and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined Rom. 9.8 to belong onely to the elect not to all Nor doth Rom. 9.4 say the promises pertained to all the Jewes nor to any in respect of external right and administration And though I deny not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to mâ—n when they make a profession of faith though not in reality yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect true believers nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right or that the Jewes Acts 2.38 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism jus ad râ—m though not jus in re afore they were believers on Christ nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but of their owning Johns doctrine becoming his disciples and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees and other Jewish Church-rulers though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism Acts 2.38 because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto yet being adult members under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal For 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jewes were members were in their profession not onely distinct but also opposite therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin and being baptized into the Name of Christ John 9.22 3. Peter doth not act in his speech Acts 2. 38 â—9 as an Elder in the Jewish Church for he was none but as an Apostle of Christ nor was their fact objected to them as an offence to the Church of which â—â—ey were but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal but to ease their consciences and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith those Jewes were offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord they were then in the Church of the Gospel and so
come and that they and we have our right to all these promises upon the self same condition Answer Thess things are manifestly false for though godliness have the promise of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 yet the promises Levit. 26.6 c. are not made to every godly man that he shall ly down and none shall make him afraid that he shall chase his enemies c. but rather assurance is given that he shall be persecuted 2 Tim. 3.12 Mark 10.29 30. Nor have they promises upon the same condition for Exod. 34.24 it is promised that none should desire the Israelites Land while they did appear thrice in the year before the Lord but to us there is not that promise nor upon that condition But saith he earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully heavenly things more generally and sparingly than they are now to us and on the contrary spiritual things are more fully and clearly promised to us than to them and earthly promises more generally and sparingly Answ. This is not all the difference for I have shewed that to us an earthly rest is not promised at all but the contrary assured to us to wit suffering persecution Mr. M. adds And that these temporal benefits which you mention viz. multiplying of Abrahams seed the bitth of Isaac and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace they were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed both by them and us These things I not onely asserted â—ut proved in my Sermon If you mean no more than this that all these temporal blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ and were subservient to it or were types and shadows of it you mean no more than what we all grant who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it than there is in that made with us and that the difference lies onely in the manner of administration Answer I deny not but that the possession of Canaan birth of Isaac multiplying Abrahams seed were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed by elect Jews and Gentiles according to the mystical hiddenâ—sense of the words nor do I deny that they were subservient to the promise of Christ whether it be to be said they flowed from the promise of Christ or tended to the fore-signifying of Christ to come the grace of the Gospel and the heavenly inheritance and rest is a doubt Surely they flowed from Gods special love to Israel above any other people Deut. 7.6 7 8. And I grant that Circumcision ratified spiritual blessings chiefly that is as the chief thing promised yet in the sense in which I think Gameron meant it Thesi 78. de triplici foedere primarily that is according to the first and manifest sense of the words it sealed earthly promises peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity and that Ciacumcision of infants was specially for that reason to wit the peculiar promises to Abrahams natural posterity nor do I see cause to mislike Grotius his speech Annot. in Luc. 1.59 Infantium autem circumcisio ostendebat foedus esse gentilium And this mixture of the Covenant with Abraham to wit that it contained not onely promises common to all believers but also promises so peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity that all of them were not according to the Law to be made good to any Gentile though a Proselyte circumcised namely the inheritance of the Land of Canaan of which none but the natural progeny of Israel were to be inheritours is so manifest that the denial of it I can hardly impute to any thing but dulness or meer pertinacy Yet why these promises so peculiar to them should be denied to be of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham I see no reason they being integral parts Christ it is true is the substance of the things promised as they were Types yet the things promised in respect of their natural being had a substance besides and in relation to the Covenant were as much the substance or substantial parts of it as the spiritual promises yea sith those spiritual promises if I may so speak did subsist in the expressions of temporal blessings it follows in my apprehension that if the promises of the spiritual blessings were of the substance of the Covenant then surely the promises of temporal blessings which those very promises did express and under the shadow of which they were made should be much more of the substance of the Covenant Nor do I conceive any grosness in it to imagine of God that he should in a Covenant of grace founded in Christ intend in the seal of it to ratifie temporal blessings when he intended to assure spiritual blessings under the covert of words in the first sense importing onely temporal As for the terming of the administration of the Covenant of grace it is neither according to Scripture nor is it very handsom sense specially according to Mr. Ms. doctrine who calls Circumcision the old administration of the Covenant and if it were an administration of the promises which were administrations of the Covenant of grace then Circumcision was an administration of an administration But Mr M. speaks to me thus I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made circumcision a seal of Canaan we have express Scripture that it sealed the righteousness of faith whereby he was justified but I no where reade that it â—ealed the Land of Canaan Answer To gratifie him I tell him that I read Circumcision called a token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 which Covenant was the Covenant mentioned before in that chapter and in that v. 8. the promise of the Land of Canaan is made and Acts 7.8 Stephen calls it The Covenant of Circumcision which he shews not how it was otherwise fulfilled in that speech but by bringing them out of Egypt and placing them in Canaan in which he fulfilled his promise to Abraham vers 6 7 16. It is true the Apostle calls Abrahams Circumcision A seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised Rom 4.11 But I finde not this said of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams surely it cannot be said truly of any ones Circumcision but a believers As for what he saith That we have now carnal promises and therefore our covenant may be as well mixt as that with Abraham I answer it is true We have promise of the life that now is and that which is to come and so our Covenant is in a sort mixt of spiritual and temporal promises but these promises are common to all godly persons both Jews and Gentiles not proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting in which sense I called it a mixt Covenant Exercit. pag. 2. Sect. 1. I grant we have outward privileges and ordinances as Baptism and the Lords Supper and that many now are members of
than a malignant spirit towards me he would have judged that not to side with Jesuits but to keep my Oath which I took in the solemn Covenant I did oppose infant-baptism in maintaining of which he and the rest of the Paedobaptists have broken the covenant whereby they bound themselves to reform the worship of God after the Word of God And for what he chargeth me with that I borrow my weapons from the Jesuits though my denial is enough to acquit me from it there being none but knows my actions better than my self and with men not malevolent to me I think my words at least deserve as much credit concerning my own actions as Mr. Blakes yet as I said so I repeat it it appears to be a loud calumâ—y in that all along in my Examen and now in my other writings almost in every point I produce Protestants of good note concurring with me not onely in the point about the extent of the covenant Examen sect 4. part 3. and the holiness of children 1 Cor. 7.14 Exam. part 3. sect 8. Exerc. sect 5. Review part 1. sect 22. but also about the institution Mat. 28.19 Review part 2. sect 5. even in this point of the mixture of the covenant in the Section next before this Yea the Principle upon which I found all my dispute is that which Mr. Cotton in his Preface to his Dialogue for infant-baptism confesseth to be a main principle of purity and reformation And though Protestant writers do many of them oppose my conclusion yet they do agree with me in the premisses on which I build it to wit that Baptism is to be after the institution and that neither the institution nor practice in the New Testament was of Paedobaptism and all Paedobaptists whether Presbyterians or Independents who do hold that infâ—nts belong to the visible Church as the posterity of Abraham to the Jewish Church â—o injuriously keep them whose Baptism they avouch to be good and to be viâ—â—ble Church-members from the Lords Supper for want of knowlâ—dg as for what he tells me He can trace me out of some Jesuit in what I deâ—â—â—er â—bout the Covenant and Seal though I do not yet believe it yet there is no reason therefore to reject it as Doctor 〈◊〉 saith truly Bishop Morton in his Apology hath produced Popish writers and many of them Jesuits who deliver the same things which the Protestants do yet this is so fâ—r from discrediting their cause that it is justly counted a good plea for them and why should not the like plea be good on my behalf sith Jesuits are Adversaries to me as well as others But enough if not too much in answer to these calumnies sufficiently answered before Postscript Sect. 13. Mr. Blake proceeds thus Secondly if Circumcision have respect to those promises that were no Gospel-mercies but civil domestical restrained to Jews and not appertaining to Christians How could it be a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion it might have made a civil distinction and the want of it have been an evidence against other Nations that they had been none of the multiplied seed of Abraham according to the flesh and that their interest had not been in Canaan But how could it have concluded them to have been without Christ strangers from the Covenant of promise having no hope and without God in the world as the Apostle determines upon their uncircumcision Ephes. 2.11 12. cannot be imagined Ans. 1. Circumcision did not make such a distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion as that every circumcised person was of the Jewish Religion for if the posterity of Ishmael and Esau were not circumcised as Mahometans at this day which some Historians say of them at least for a time that they were yet Ahab and other worshiperps of Baal were of the posterity of Jacob and the Samaritans as Mr. Mede in his Discourse on John 4.23 were circumcised yet were not of the Jewsh Religion or at least there was a distinction in Religion between them John 4.22 Noâ— every one that worshipped the same God with the Jews was circumcised Cornelius and many other Proselytes of the gate owned the God and spiritual worship and moral Law of the Jews though they were not circumcised as Mr. Mede proves in his Discourse on Acts 17.4 nor doth the Apostle Ephes. 2.11 12. determine upon their uncircumcision that is conclude them without hope without God barely from their uncircumcision as if he held all uncircumcised were without hope without God but he onely sets those things down as concurrent not one the certain cause or sign of the other 2. Circumcision did distinguish between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion not because it sealed Gospel-mercies nor because it sealed promises of civil or domestick benefits but because it bound to the observance of the Law of Moses in respect of the observation of which the distinction in Religion was known by Circumcision not by its sealing the covenant-promises either Evangelical or civil and domestick 3. If the distinction between Jew and Gentile respective to Religion were made by Circumcision as sealing the covenant Gen. 17. it might have made a religious distinction by my Tenet who hold it signed the spiritual promises though not them onely as wel as by Mr. Blakes The next thing which Mr. Blake urgeth against me from Jerem. 4.4 Rom. 2.28 Deut. 10.16 Deut. 30.6 Ezek. 44.9 is that Circumcision had relation to promises spiritual which is not denied nor any thing against the mixture I hold in the covenant nor to evacuate any inference I make from it In like manner the fourth tends to prove that Circumcision did not respect alone the civil interest of the Jews which I grant But the fifth thing urged by Mr. Blake needs some examination Fifthly saith he How is it that the Apostle giving a definition of Circumcision refers it to nothing rational civil or domestick but onely to that which is purely spiritual speaking of Abraham he saith he received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised The righteousness of faith is a promise purely Evangelical Rom. 3.22 3.30 10.3 Phil. 3.8 and this Circumcision sealed the self-same thing that our Sacraments seal Answer The Apostle doth not give a definition of Circumcision Rom. 4.11 12. For 1. that which is to be defined is say Logicians a common term but Circumcision Rom. 4.11 is not a common term but a singular or individual to wit that which Abraham had in his own person it is that which he received and the time is noted to be after he had righteousness by faith which he had yet being uncircumcised for a singular privilege to be the father of believers Ergo 2. There is no genus nor difference of Circumcision from other things therefore no definition No genus for the term seal cannot be the genus it being a meer Metaphor and so
not declaring what it is but what it is like in respect of the use Besides Circumcision is an action but Seal is in the Predicament of relation as being a sign or a figure in the Predicament of quality or an aggregate compound of a material substance having a figure for signification But the genus is in the same Predicament with the species and so is not Seal with Circumcision Ergo. For doth Seal of the righteousness of faith agree to all Circumcision nor difference it from the Spirit of God nor according to the Paedobaptists Hypothesis from the Pass-over Baptism or the Lords Supper Mr. Blake adds So that their extraordinary Sacraments are expresly affirmed to be the same with ours by the Apostle 1 Cor. 10.3 They eat all the same spiritual meat and did all drink the same spiritual drink so are their appointed established Sacraments Circumcision and the Pass-over Answer 1. The extraordinary Sacraments are said to note the same thing with ours not expresly affirmed to be the same with ours 2 It is no where said in Scripture that Circumcision and the Pass-over did note the same thing with our Sacraments much less that they are the same Sacraments with ours Mr. Blake adds Will Mr. T. with his old friend Bellarmine lib. 1. cap. 17. de Saramentis in genere and Mr. Blackwood in his Reply to the tenth Objection deny that Circumcision was an universal seal of faith but was onely an individual seal of the undividual faith of Abraham and so all falls to the ground which is spoken from that Text of the use of Circumcision to the Jews All that is there spoken having reference onely to Abraham in person Answer Mr. Blake tells me of an old friend of mine whom I never knew and have hitherto made him mine adversary although perhaps we may agree in some things and I think Mr. Blake and he agree in more than I do with him It seems not to me to be Bellar. opinion or Mr. Blackwoods that circumcision was onely an individual Seal of the faith of Abraham but Bellarmines opinion is that his circumcision did testifie not his individual faith but his individual privilege to be father of the faithfull which Mr. Blake agrees with him in when he saith This priority of receiving the faith and the sign and seal is proper to Abraham· And then he is as much his old friend as mine Mr. Blackwood in his Reply to the second part of the Vind. of the Birth-privilege pag. 47. saith thus So that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness which Abraham had not in persona propria but in persona relativa it sealed unto him not his own personal righteousness which he had long before but the righteousness of all believers In which I dissent from him conceiving it sealed both however his opinion seems to be otherwise than Mr. Blake represents it For my self I do not make it any seal of faith either universal or individual nor know I well what sense to make of either but this is my opinion that Abrahams individual Circumcision and no others is made Rom. 4.11 12. the seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham as the father of believers and to all believers of all Nations as his seed Now to this opinion of mine I finde nothing opposite but against another point that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith and of the Covenant to him onely which I disclaim and therefore let his arguments pass without gain-saying onely I request the Reader to take notice that Mr. Blake hath many ways mis-represented my opinion in this Ch. but hath not at all overthrown the mixture in the Covenant Gen. 17. which I assert but where he sets down my opinion rightly saith pag. 181. To this I readily agree nor hath at all so much as brought one reason to shew that my distinction shews not my turn for which I bring it which he undertook to do but leaves that thing and runs out in calumnies of me and proving that which I deny not SECT XXVII The four first Chapters of Mr. Sidenham's Exercitation are examined and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving Infant-baptism the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. Infants of Believers being Abraham's seed and in Covenant is shewed I Think it necessary for many Reasons afore I review the dispute about Mr. Ms. second conclusion to consider what Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham hath said in the four first Chapters of his Exercitation 1. He forestalls his Reader with things palpably false that there is nothing in all the New Testament against the baptizing of Infants not one hint from any express word dropt from Christ or his Apostles not one phrase which though never so much strained doth forbid such an act The contrary whereof is abundantly proved in the second Part of this Review Sect. 5. c. nor can any Paedobaptist finde so much against infant-communion Bell-baptism baptizing of dead persons Baptism of Midwives the Cross in Baptism and many other Prelatical and Popish usages as there is in the New Testament against infant-baptism 2. That all his Opposites have onely this to say that they can finde no syllabical precept or word of command in terms saying Go baptize Infants or any positive example where it is said in so many words Infants were baptized all that they say besides is to quarrel with and evade their arguments and that this argument is built on this false principle that no direct consequences from Scripture are mandatory the contrary whereof is so manifest out of my Examen part 3. sect 12. Apol. sect 11. which Mr. Sidenham often quotes and therefore cannot be ignorant of unless wilfully and throughout all my writings that a man can hardly conceive but that he shamelesly vented these things against his own knowledg And therefore I need not answer his Reasons to prove the use of consequence Let any Paedobaptist give me one good consequence whereby infant-baptism is proved and I shall yield the consequences of Mr. Baxter and others I finde to be meer fallacies and have and doubt not with divine assistance to shew them to be so That which he saith pag. 6. That where we have a promise laid as the foundation of a duty that is equivalent to any express command for as commands in the Gospel do suppose promises to encourage us to act â—â—em and help us in them so promises made to persons do include commands especially when the duties commanded are annexed to the promises as all New Testament Ordinances are as well as old is ambiguous and in what sense it is true it serves not Mr. Sidenhams turn to prove infant-baptism By foundation of a duty may be understood either a motive to encourage to a duty named as when it is said Him that honoureth me I will honour this promise doth suppose it a duty to honour God and is a motive to encourage to it and so is a foundation in that
de nudis signis as is â—leare in the Ecclesiasticall Stories of old and most arguings of Anabaptists Which shewes they fear Infants Baptim will not be maintained without this doctrine of giving by Baptism to the elect at least initiall seminall regerating grace reall or relative But Mr. Baxter thinks otherrwise that that doctrine will increase Anabaptism Leaving them to their severall fancies I proceed Mr. Calvin and wâ—th him many others take another course to avoyd extreams neither making Baptism a naked sign which is imputed to Zuinglius nor ascribing to it the giving of grace by the work wrought with the Papists nor holding such initiall seminall regeneration or seed of Faith at Baptism given at least to the elect as Lutherans and others which perhaps will be found as much as the Papists ascribe to it but ascribing to Baptism and the Lords Supper not onely signification but also obsignation and so making this the generall nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace which they say is made to infants of believers though they want not faith at or before Baptism and from this promise they desire a title to the baptism of Infants of believers as is shewed out of Calvin above But 1. there is much ambiguity in their determinations about the covenant of grace what it is and what it contains and in what sense it belongs â—o infants of believers as such and what believers infants it belongs â—o and how baptism seals it So that in their speeches there is much equivocation and frequent saying and unsaying as chiefly about the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee which is one way expounded in their Commentaries on Rom. 9.7 8 and elsewhere as meant of saving graces and applied onely to the elect and true believers in their disputes against Arminius But elsewhere expounded of every Gentile visible professor of faith in Christ and his naturall seed as if thereby the outward privileges of visible Church membership and initiall seal were promised and applied to all infants of believers whether elect or not in their disputes against Anabaptists as may be perceived by this and other writings published by me 2. The objection still holds How can baptism seal to an infant Every seal is a sign though every sign be not a seal but baptism is no sign to an infant sith it signifies nothing to it at the time of baptism because the infant hath not understanding to perceive the use of it and when the infant comes to understanding there 's no print of baptism to represent anything to the person baptized some years before If the person know anything of it it is by report which is no visible sign but audible to the baptized 3. A a seal is an assuring sign to the eye of what is promised to the eare but baptism assures nothing to an infant without faith therefore it seals nothing without faith And thus in Mr Perkins his Exposition of the fifth principle of his Catechism Heretofore we were taught A Sacrament is a sign to represent a seal to confirm an instrument to convey Christ and all his benefits to them that do believe in him Faith therefore was a necessary prerequisite in the person to whom the Sacrament was a seal of the Covenant of grace which infants wanting it is no seal to them and consequently no Sacrament as Mr. Gataker argues in another case Discep de bapt inf vi effic pag. 192. â—f it be a seal of the essence of a Sacrament The main if not the onely Texts whence they â—etch this Doctrine of making the nature of Sacraments to be Seals of the covenant of grace are Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.7 10 11. In the former it is said Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised and in the other Circumcision is termed the Covenant and token of the Covenant Whence the seal of the Covenant of grace is either made the definition of a Sacrament in generall or at least the genus of it and in the writings of Paedobaptists â—â—â—ls of the Covenant and Sacraments are used as terms of the same signification Iâ— the Confession of faith of the Assembly chap. 27. art 1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the Covenant of grace and they cite but two texts for it Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.7.10 Yea in the Ordinance of Parliament Octob. 20 1645. about Rules concerning examining persons to be admited to the Lords Supper this is one principle which every one who is admitted to the Lords Supper is required to give account of that Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ so that in effect it is made as one of the first Credenda or articles of faith necessary for all to know On the contrary I have seen a little book in English of one Mr. Jackson in which are nineteen arguments to prove circumcision no seal of the covenant of grace For my part as I express my self in my Examen pag. 117. I should not stâ—ck to yeild that the rites of the New Testament called Sacraments may be called seals of the covenant of grace being â—ightly expounded in this sense that they shâ—w forth Christs death and thereby to the true believer the benefits of the covenant of grace are assured yet considering how Writers make this the very Genus in the definition of them and of their nature and essence and thence inferre duties and draw arguments to determine cases of conscience about the use of Sacraments as they are called and make it a necessary point to be acknowledged by all I reject it and except against this use of that term for these reasons First Because this use of that term is not in or from the holy Scripture That term Seal of the covenant of grace is not expressly in the holy Scripture I suppose will not be denied if it be let it be shewed where Though the term Seal and the true Token of the Covenant be ascribed to circumcision Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.11 yet is not the term Seal of the Covenant of grace applied to any Sacrament no not to circumcision Nor is the term Seal of the righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 of the same sense with the term Seal of the covenant of grace For the Seale of the covenant of grace in the ordinary acception is as much as an assuring sign or mean of the grace of the covenant to be bestowed Rom. 4.11 it is said that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised and therefore it was rather a seal of certification of what he had than a prediction or promise what he should have Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 104. saith truly That circumcision was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith even a justifying faith already in being Rom. 4.11 12. The
New England Elders in their Answer to the third and fourth of the nine positions pag. 65. say truly thus The scope of the Apostle in that place Rom. 4 11 is not to defâ—ne a Sacrament nor to shew what is the adequate subject of the Sacrament but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God not by works but by faith thus As Abraham the Father of the faitfull was justified before God so must his seed be that in all believers whether Iewes or Gentiles circumcised or uncircumcised for therefore Abraham received circumcision which belonged to the Iewes to confirm the righteousness which he had before even whilst he was uncircumcised that he might be the Father of both And to speak truth to conceive that circumcision there is made the seal of the covenant of grace that is that God would be the God of Abraham and his seed for the future sanctifying justifying saving him and them â—is indeed to evacuate the force of the Apostles argument which is that righteousness is not appropriated to the Lawes by the Law but common to the Gentiles with them by faith because Abrahams circumcision sealed to him the righteousness of faith which he had before he was circumcised Nor do I see that which Camier Paust Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 10. Sect. 47. saith doth prove that circumcision Rom. 4.11 is meant of a Seal of a promise because Gen. 17. in the institution it was termed a token of the covenant for the Apostle Rom. 4 11. mentions not what God appointed circumcision to be to every circumcised person but what peculiar use Abrahrms circumcision had to him and all believers though uncircumcised And though it is true that righteousness of faith supposeth a word of God or a promise or covenant of grace yet Ro 4.11 the citcumcision there mentioned is said to seal not a promise of something future but something past and already had many years before Gen. 15.6 But were it granted that ciâ—cumcision there sealed the promise to come to wit that part of the covenant Gen. 17.4 Thou shalt be a father of many Nations and that v 7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to bee a God unto thee and thy seed after thee or that Gen. 15.5 So shall thy seed be mentioned Rom. 4.17 18. and so did assure a future estate to others as well as an estate already obâ—ained to Abraham yet this is ascribed in that place to no ones circumcision but Abrahams For 1. The occasion and scope of the passage shew it is meant of Abrahams circumcision it being alleged to prove that Gentiles were to be justified by faith though uncircumcised because Abraham was justified by faith afore circumcision and his circumcision after did but seal not convey the righteousness of faith we had before 2. The expression He received standing in opposition to yet being uncircumcised shewes that the receiving of the seal of circumcision was in his own person 3. The end of receiving it shâ—wes it more plainly for it was That he might be the father of them that believe But this was the end onely of Abrahams personall circumcision Neither Ishmaels nor Isaacks nor any others personall circumcision were that Abraham might be the father of them that believe but onely Abrahams 4. The time exactly noted of his believing and imputation of rightâ—ousness to him distinguished from the time of his receiving circumcision shew plainly that it was the same person who had the one and the other and the receiving it not as a command to execute it upon others but as a sign and seal to himself and all believers whether circumcised or uncircumcised evidently shew it is spoken Rom 4.11 of Abrahams personall circumcision and of no others As for Gen. 17.10 11. it is true Circumcision is termed the Covenant and a token of the Covenant But it is not said of that promise onely v 7. nor of that promise in the Gospel sense and therefore it cannot there be proved to be a token or seal of the Covenant of grace but it followeth that Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17 7.10 are impertinently alledged by the Assembly to prove this proposition Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the Covenant of grace Yea the end of circumcision was conceived generally by the Jewes and so used to bind men to observe the Law of Moses for righteousness And thus they taught who are mentioned Acts 15.1 Except ye be circumcised after the manneâ— of Moses yee cannot be saved And v. 5. That it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses Acts 21.20 21. Thou seest brother how many thousands of Jewes there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jewes which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying That they ought not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customes and the Apostle Gal. 5.2 3 saith Behold I Paul say to you That if any of you be circumeised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law So that circumcision in the ordinary use may seem to have been a seal of the Law rather than of the Gospel or covenant of grace and if your baptism be of the same nature with circumcision it is so far from being a rite of the Gospel that it rather binds us to observe the Law But fourthly were it granted that it was in the use of it according to the institutton a seal of the covenant of grace how doth it follow from thence that this is the nature of every Sacrament Whence will it be evinced that that is the Genus of every Sacrament which is not so much as once attributed to them The Passover is counted a Sacrament and we find that it signified the Passover over the Isralites houses and sparing their first born and that it typified Christ 1 Cor 5.7 But this doth not prove that it was a seal of the covenant of grace any more than Jonâ—hs being in the Whales belly which was a type of Christs buriall was a seal of the covenant of grace I grant we are said to be baptized into Christs death to be buried by baptism into death Rom 6 3 4 to be buried with him in Baptism and therein to be raised up through the faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead Col. 2.12 and that they who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 And the Cup is called the new Testament in his blood 1 Cor. 12.25 And therefore I should yelld to call both thâ—se ordinances signes memorative of Christs death in the first place and by consequence seals of the New Testament and its benefitâ—s specially the Cup in the Lords Supper But
and uncertainty among them To which I conceive my self the more ingaged because some words of mine in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. gave some overture to Mr M. and after to Mr Bl. and Mr B. to except much against me about this point Two things which I said in that passage it seems are not relished one that I said that God seals not to every one that is baptized but onely to true believers the other that making Gods promise in the covenant of grace conditional in this sense that persons after agnize the covenant and that to speak of it so as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnâ—ze or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him â—s symbolizing with Arminians To this Mr M. replied but little yet what he saith in his Defence pag. 236 I shall briefly answer First saith he Was not Circumcision Gods sign and seal which by his own appointment was applied to all the Jewes and proselytes and their children Ans. Circumcision was appointed by God to be applied to all the Jews proselytes and their children being males of eight dayes old and was by his institution a sign of the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Abrahams own circumcision in his own person was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumâ—ised but that God did by Circumcision seal â—o every one the righteousness of faith who was rightly circumcised I find not nor if I did should I think it were any thing to prove that God seals the righteousness of faith to every one that is baptized rightly sith I doe not take circumcision and baptism to be all one or to have the same use or that baptism seals in the same manner as circumcision Mr. M. adds Did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their hearts c. Answer No. And are not the Sacraments Signa conditionalia conditionall signes and Seals Answer I conceive baptism according to Christs institution to be a sign of the faith of the baptized and so it is a sign absolute and not conditionall and because the object of that faith is Christ dead and risen again whereby we are justified and baptisme as fitted to mind the baptized of Christs death but all and resurrection Rom. 6.2 3 4. Col. 2.12 it is in its nature that is in its right use apt to seal that is to assure justification and salvation 1 Pet. 3.21 and so may be termed in its nature a seal aptitudinall but yet it seals actually to none but those who truly believe which it doth absolutely in respect of justification and coditionally in respect of glorification which is not yet attained nor to be attained but upon conditition of perseverance yet it doth not seal that as an uncertain thing because conditionall for even the condition also is assured by vertue of the death of Christ confirming the covenant of grace or the New Testament in his blood But when I say these things are actually assured by baptism I do not conceive they are actually sealed by God not to the true believer without the inward testimony or seal of the spirit without which God never sealed actually by his word or Sacraments these promises of the covenant of grace or the persons interest in them although both the word of God the oath of God the death of Christ the ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper are in themselves or in their nature aptitudinall seals that is apt signs to assure them The like I say of the Lords Supper both which are alike signes and seals neither to an infant without extraordinary operation Mr M. adds And did any orthodox Divines before your self charge this to be Arminianism to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions I confesse it is Arminianism to say any thing is conditionall to God this I never assertedâ— but that the Gospel is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and gone Answer I never charged this to be Arminianism That the Gospel runs upon conditions that it is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith according to the explication given What I count symbolizing with the Arminians I have before declared to wit Gods conditionall sealing and covenant common to elect and reprobates as Mr M. in his Sermon seemed to conceive To what I said that I did not well understand that God required of the Jewes infants to seal in their infancy I reply saith Mr M. But I hope you understand that the infants were sealed in their infancy and by this they received not only a priviledge to be accounted as belonging to Gods family but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the covenant as they grew up to be capable of performing them Answer I understand the Iewes were circumcised in their infancy but that God did seal to every circumcised infant either the truth of the promises or his interest in them or that they did in infancy seal to God I do not yet understand For though they had the priviledge mentioned yet not by vertue of Gods sealing to them and though they were obliged to the duties mentioned yet not by vertue of their sealing to God But Mr. Bl. and Mr B. are more earnest in this point and in opposition to what I said in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. in his Answer to my Letter Mr. Bl. ch 15. asserts Sect. 1. The seals of the Sacrament are conditionall not absolute Sect. 2. The entrance into covenant and acceptation of the terms of it is common to the elect and reprobate a heart stedfast in the covenant and the mercies of the conenant are proper onely to the elect and regenerate Sect. 3. To say that the seals of the Sacraments are conditionall and that the reprobate are within the verge of the covenant as tendered in the Gospel and accepted is not to symbolize with Arminians To which I replied in my Postscript Sect. 21. concerning which Mr. Bl. in his plain Scripture proof c. pag. 224. of the first Edition saith But to these Mr. Bl. hath fully answered Mr T. though in his Apology he passeth over much and is not able to discern his meaning For my part I speak impartially according to my judgement I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book in opening the nature of the covenant than in all Mr T s book that ever he wrote about baptism And pag. 222. he chargeth me with two errors in Apologie and saith of them I conceive these dangerous errors of Mr T. about the nature of
of the covenant of grace belongs for to none particularly besides the elect belongs the promise of justification adoption and glorification Therefore the conditionall promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacraments 4. Saiâ—h Mr. B. If according to Mr T. his judgement that absolute promise must be fulfilled to a man before he be capable of receiving the Sacraments which are seals of the covenant of grace then is it not that absolute promise which is the covenant of grace sealed to by the Sacraments But according to Mr. T. his judgment that absolute promise must be fulfilled to a man before he be capable of a right receiving the Sacraments which are seals of the covenant of grace Therefore it is not that absolute promise which is the covenant so sealed to The Antecedent is evident â—f you consider 1. That it is the promise of the first renewing grace which we speak of for all after grace is promised conditionally 2. That Mr. T. pleadeth that believers onely are disciples and such disciples onely must be baptized 3. That faith is a part of this first grace absâ—lutely promised as is commonly judged The giving of a new soft heart is the giving the seed of all graces and so of faith The consequence is evident because the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed is not given before the first sealing But the mercy promised in that absolute promise is according to Mr. T. and in part the truth given before the first sealing of the Covenant of grace therefore c. God doth not promise a Seal to a man that hath a new heart to give him a new heart or to a man that is a believer that he will give him to be a believer except we speak of the continuance or increase of faith and newnesse which is not the thing in question Answer The consequence of this argument may be denied and the reason of it also For according to the Apostle Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised Rom 4 11. If then the sealing of the covenant of grace by baptism be the same with the sealing of the righteousness of faith by circumcision Rom. 4.11 which is the common tenent of many Paedobaptists who from this Text draw a definition of Sacraments though falsly as is shewed before then the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed is given before the first sealing Yea if the conditionall covenant be sealed to believers now justification which is the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed is given before the first sealing For a man is justified actually as soon as ever he believes as I am confident Mr. B will grant Buâ— he is not regularly baptized till after his believing therefore a believer is justified and consequently the mercy promised in the first covenant which is sealed is given before the first sealing That all after grace is promised conditionally is said by Mr. B. without proof and how inconsistent it is with the promises of perseverance how much it undermines the doctrine of the Saints perseverance how it disables the godly to plead the promises and takes away their comforts when they are sensible of their fâ—iâ—ings if the after graces of recoveâ—y after falâ—s and perseverance to the end be promised condiâ—ionally I need noâ— shew it here â—iâ—h Dr. Owen hath done it amply in his Treatise of Perseverace ch 4 5 c. Dr. Kendall in his sancti sanciti ch 3. and wouâ—d be here a digressiâ—n 5. Saith Mr. B. The benefits of the Covenant of grace which are sealed by the Sacraments are by those of age to be received by faith But the benefits of the absolute promise of the first grace are not to be received by faith Therefore this is not the covenant of grace so sealed The Major is evident Mr. T. saith onely believers must be baptized as disciples The Minor is proved before Faith is part of the thing promised and we do not by faith receive our first faith or our power to believe Answer It is not I onely but Mr. B. himself who speaks in effect what I say Plain Script prâ—of c. pag. 299 â—00 of the first edition when he saith That in the instiâ—ution and every example of baptism through all the Bible the first grace is prerequisite as a condition is undeniable as might be manifest by a recitall of the particular Texts could we stay so long upon it John required a profession of repentance in those he baptized Jesus first made them Disciples and then by his Apostles baptized them John 4.1 The solemn institution of it as a standing ordinance to the Church which tells us fully the end is in Matth 21.19 20. Go and disciple me all Nations baptizing them c. Now for the aged a disciple and a believer are all one Mark 16 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Acts 2.38 Repent and be bapâ—ized every one c. 41 They that gladly received his word were baptized Acts 8.12 13. The Samaritans believed and were baptized both men and women Simon himself believed and was baptized Acts 8.36 37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist be baptized and he answered I believe c. Paul believed upon Ananias instruction and then was baptâ—zed Acts 10.47 48. 16.15 33. 18.8 19.4 5 c. You see it is still required that at all age do first believe and then be baptized I acknowledge he puts in these words for the aged at all age by which he would prevent the inference from his own words against infants baptism intimating that there are an institution and examples of infant baptism elsewhere But this is but a vain caution when his own proposition is That in the institution every example of baptism through all the Bible the first grace to wit Faith is prerequisite as a condition is undeniable So that which he intimates in his caution is contradictory to himself and a palpable falshood there being no other institution or example of baptism to any but disciples or believers in all the Bible and therefore baptism of infants who are not believers or disciples is a manifest abuse deviation from Christ and his Apostles appointment and practice by Mr. B. his own words and consequently will-worship and profanation of that ordinance As for the present objection I deny the Major if it be universall though Mr. B. saith it is evident but proves it not nor doth any concession prove iâ— For though I grant persons are to be believers afore baptism yet it doth not follow that the benefits of the covenant of grace which is sealed by the Sacraments are to be receivâ—d by faâ—th and not before It is Mr. B. his mistake that the promise to which there is sealing must be fulfilled afâ—er and not before The contrary is manifest in Abrahams circumcision in baptism as I shewed before and in
That the Apostles reasoning Rom. 9.4 6. compared mentions any such Church-seed of Abraham or takes them in as such but onely the elect Mr C. doth falsly charge his adversaries doctrine as denying any interest at all to any believers infants in the covenant I have often granted it to the elect but to none as believers infants Mr Baillee charged me with this thing to which I answered in my Letter to him Sect. 1. our doctrine is as comfortable as theirs when they speak truth It is no Gospel but a dream to affirm what Mr. C. doth of Abrahams fancied Church-seed though it be Gospel to say God will be a God to Abrahams spirituall seed elect and true believers SECT XL. Animadversions on Sect. 5. of the same Chapter shewing that Mr. C. his supposed visible interest in Gods covenant is not the rule in baptizing SEct. 5 Mr. C. sets down this conclusion That the Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the covenant of grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the covenant to guide her in the application thereof Nor is the saving interest of persons in view which is her rule by which she is therin to proceed Concerning which I say that I grant it if the terms be altered into plainer expressions as thus The baptizer in the admitting a person to baptism is not bound to stay baptism till he know a person hath saving interest in Gods covenant of grace but it is sufficient if he be a visible disciple or believer to admit him to baptism And that M. C. may cease his wonder he who confessed that it 's not to be denied that God would havâ— infants of believers in some sense to be counted his to belong to his Church and Family not to the Divels as true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis c. doth not oppose his fourth Conclusion reduced to the plain terms I have set it down 〈◊〉 Yet there are sundry things in which I oppose him 1. That he makes it the Churches business to dispense the initiatory seale as he calls it of the covenant of grace which I â—ake to belong to him that is sent or used to make disciples by preaching the Gospel not to the Church 2. That he maketh the rule of baptizing to be visible interest in the covenant which according to the institution is visible discipleship or faith 3. That he takes that person to have visible interest in the covenant of grace so as to have right therby to baptism who neither by extraordinary revelation from God nor by any act of his own but barely by his parents profession hath a pretended visible interest in the covenant But let 's examine what he saith because he seems to be the selected man in New England to plead for Infant-baptism Whether John the Baptist did admit to baptism those which he knew would prove false and frothy is doubtfull Mr Norton Mr Cs. Colleague Resp. ad Appollon c. Prop 1. seems to hold the negative and cites to that purpose Paraus and Aretius I agree with Mr. C. in his position That personâ— may be baptiâ—ed upon visible profession without knowledge of the saving state of the party yet I do not think Ananias and Sapphira or Simon Magus were known hypoâ—â—ites when â—hey were bâ—ptized nor do I think the Texts Mr C. allegeth Acts 21.20 c or 22 20 c. or 23 12 13 prove that any of those baptized Acts 2.41 or 4.1 2.3 4. were of the number of them that opposed Paul or proved false If Christ did say to Iudas that his body was broken or given fâ—r him and his blood shed it will be hard to avoid thence the proof of universall redemption I think it the safest and most likely tenent that Judas went out afore the Lords Supper For the Passover it was not administred to Judas by Christ nor do I know what warrant we have to make it a seal of the covenant or to belong to a Minister of the seals as they speak It was a rite instituted to remember the delivery out of Egypt ond appointed to be used by each family without any other administration than the providing slaying dressing and bringing to the Table If the Prist did any thing in it it was at the Temple not at the Table each person was to take himself according to his eating Abraeham and Isaac did circumcise Ishmael Esau rightly according to Gods command which is the rule in administring ordinances not covenant-inâ—erest But that they did circumcise as Prophets or Priests at that time to the Church in their families it is said without proof The business of circumcising was not the work of a person as a Prophet or Priest to his family but did belong to the parent or some other in his stead though no Prophet nor Priest Chamier Paustr cath tom 4 l 5 c. 14. sect 9 10 saith We read of no certain Minister of Circumcision either in the institution or elswhere so that there 's no obstacle but that Zipporah and the woman in the second of Maccabees c. 6. might circumcise So there is nothing read by which the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was wont to be done in each family is prohibited though no Priests were used Ishmael and Esau and Iudas were not visibly interessed in the covenant being discovered by God and Christ to be such as had no interest in it That a Minister cannot of himself admit to baptism or reject from it regularly but by and with the Churches consent is dictated without proof I grant that if particular persons saving interest in Gods covenant and promise of grace were the Rule to baptize by administrators could not observe the rule in faith but doubtingly But that such visible interest in the Covenant as Mr C. means is therefore the rule to baptize by follows not What or where A. R. suggests to the contrary I find not nor doth Mr C. tell us What he adds I say visibility of the parties interest in the covenant I say not meer visibility of faith and repentance is quite besides the Scripture which never appoints persons to be baptized because of their visible interest in the covenant but their visible faith and repentance He tells us The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mens faith and repentance or obedience but of Gods covenant rather the seal is to the covenant even Abrahams circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteousness but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant yea to the covenant it self or promise which he had believed unto righteousness Hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith Rom. 10.6 7 8. The righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise v. 8. and the word of faith Hence albeit Abraham must walk before God who is now about to enlarge the covenant to his as well as to make it to him in a Church-reference Gen. 17.1 c. yet the
initiatory seal in his as as well as their flesh is Gods covenant v. 13. or a sacramentall sign firstly and expresly of Gods covenant v. 11. 7. compared albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned Hence Acts 2.38 39 the seal of baptism is put to the promise as the choice matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it self repent and be baptized for the promise is to you not for you have repented as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptism but the promise rather Answ. The inititory seal is a late devised term not found in Scripture and it is used upon an erroneous conceit as if the nature of Sacraments were to be seals of the Covenant and baptism were the initiatory seal But the term initiatory seal is chosen rather than the word baptism though it be the Scripture term by Mr. C. and others that they may shuffle what they say in and out under the term of ininitiatory seal sometimes understanding by it Circumcision sometimes baptism as if they were the same and what is said of the one were meant of the other which is meer fallacious arguing But setting aside Mr. C's lately devised term the end of Christian baptism is in the first place that thereby the party baptizâ—d may testifie his repentance faith and hope in Christ love to the people of God and resolution to follow Christ to the death And this is proved in my Exercit in the twelfth reason of my doubting about Pedobaptism pag. 33. in the 2 part of this Review Sect. 5. from these Scriptures Rom. 6.3 4.5 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.26 27. Ephe. 4.5 Col. 2 12. 1 Pet. 3.20 where the phrase of the answer of a good conscience as Beza rightly observes in his Annot. on that place alludes to the manner of the primitive baptizing after the answer to the questions propounded concerning the parties repentance faith and obedience which were held so necessary to baptism in the first ages of the Christian Church that none was baptized without it yea and when infant baptism came up even till our dayes and in some places according to the Common prayer Book even to the infants the same questions are propounded yea the Lutherans confesse that without faith in infants it is in vain to baptize them The continuance of which questions as Lud Vives Comment in Augustin de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. rightly saith proves the original use of baptism to be of those only that could answer those questions In respect of which Basil and others call baptism the seal of faith Tertullian of repenâ—ance the sealing of faith Chamier Paustr Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 8. cites the treatise of the spirit under the name of Bazil ch 12. saying Confession goes before bringing to salvation baptism followes sealing our consent whence he infers thus manifestly salvation is ascribed to confession but baptism is the seal of confession No where that ever I could find among the Ancients is baptism termed the seal of the Covenant Bucer on Acts. 2.38 To be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is by the sign of baptism to testifie that were the believers in Christ for remission of sins Grot Annot on Mark. 16.16 And is baptized he that believeth and by baptism maketh profession of his faith So that the profession of faith by it is the primary end and use of baptism nor is there any place of Scripture that I know which doth make the end of baptism to be the sealing of Gods Covenant to us And here by the way it is to be noted what shifting is used in this matter by Pedobaptist They say the seal follows the Covenant and the parties interest in it and this Covenant they make the righteousness of faith as Mr. C. here but when they are pressed that then in vain are infants non-elect and non-believers baptized who are not in that Covenant they fly to an imaginary external Covenant and visible interest in that as sealed by it and there by a right to be baptized which yet by their own confession is not the Covenant of grace nor by sealing that interest is the Covenant of grace sealed for that is Gods Covenant of righteousness by faith not the baptized persons Covenant or his right As for Mr. C's observations here they are false and slighty For neither is it true that it is hence because baptism is not primarily the seal of mans faith and repentance but of Gods Covenant rather Abrahams circumcision was called a seal of the righteousness of faith but the contrary rather is true For if it were a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised it sealed rather his own faith and the righteousness by it already obtained than Gods covenant to him of something to come And if circumcision be called Gods Covenant yet it follows not that baptism is rather a seal of Gods covenant than of mans faith and repentance That which he saith of Acts. 2.38.39 is as vain For the promise is not alledged there as sealed in baptism or giving any right to baptism but meerly as a motive to them to repent and to be baptized in the sense I give Antipaedobapt part 1. Sect. 5. In this part of the Review Sect. 5.8.21 22 23 wherein Mr· C's frivolous interpretation is examined And though the Apostle do not bid them be baptized because they had repented yet he bids them first to repent and then be baptized Infants have no visible title to baptism because they make no visible personal profession Parental faith in the Covenant made to them and their children is but a delusion What ever may be said of the texts Deuteronomy 26.17 Deuteronomy 29.10 11 12. c. Concerning taking it of children of which in the examining of Mr. B's remainder there is no visibility of infants Church-membership in the Christian churches mentioned in Scripture I know not how the believing Gods testimony is the assent of charity I still say there is no judgment of charity concerning infants who do nothing which may be interpreted to the better or the worse Mr. C. if he had recited my words fully in my Examen Pag. 41. might have found my words to yeeld him no help for his fourth Conclusion I pass on to the fifth SECT XLI Sect. 41. Animadversions on the sixth sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members noâ— parents profession of faith unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism SEct. sixthly he sets down this conclusion That Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the â—ead in that respect which prove unsound as well as in other respects he is considered as head of the visible Church wherein are none but elect ones Concerning which I say that part of the invisible Church which is on
not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging Ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29.10 11. c with 30.11 12 13 14. so Isai. 51.7 Gods covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this I will be your God whence all is inclosed up in that phrase ibid. or was not the first made to the Iews after their return from Captivity more expresly Ier. 3â— as before more implicitely Gen. 17. Reply The objection I concieve though I do not well know whose it is is this that the covenant at mount Sinai with the Iewish nation or the covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. were not the same with the covenant for that was in the flesh in circumcision or with the fleshly Iew in that at mount Sinai this is the heart by writing Gods Law there and comprehends onely them in whose hearts Gods Laws are written And indeed this difference the Apostle makes between the Covenant of the Law and the Goâ—pel the one was of the letter the other of the spirit 2 Cor. 3.6 the promise of the spirit is said to be by faith Gal. 3.14 and in the new covenant this is made the promise different from what was in the first which was faulty for want of it Heb. 8.10 â— that God would write his laws in their hearts now what Mr. C. speaks seems to me no whit to infring this For though it is true the word of Covenant was in their hearts yet it is true if meant of sanctifying implantation only of the elect not all Abrahams natural seed or the whole body of Israel How Moses is said to judg Ecclesiastically I understand not Deut. 29.10 11. c. with 30.11 12 13 14. do not prove that Moses avowed of every Isralite that the word of covenant was in their heart In some places doubtless the promise I will be your God includs also the writing of Gods Laws in our hearts nor will I deny it included in the promise Gen. 17.7 But I do then not understand it of every Israelite in that sense for if so then I must make Gods word fal sith he doth not perform it to al. And for that which Mr. C. seems to hold that they had the promise dispensed unto them with execution of the covenant it is in my apprehension to charg God with falshood if any say I wrong Mr. C. let him construe this passage otherwise if he can yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them suppose he did not that is the execution of the covenant as for the very â—erith or Covenant itself it is the promise whereof dispensed to them and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30.6 To circumcise the heart to love God is to imprint gracious dispositions to promise the same to them is a Covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid In which words he seems plainly to make God promise to imprint in some the gratious disposions he doth not actually imprint which is to make God not keepe his word nor is the matter mended by asking is not Gods Covenant now also sacramentally on our bodies too and in many no further For I grant many are baptized who are not regenerate yet I do not believe Gods Covenant of grace is to any such or as Mr. C. speaks Gods Covenant to write his Laws in their hearts is to any such Nor do I think that either Ierem. 31·33 or Deut. 30.6 God promiseth to all Israelits to write holy dispositions in their hearts but only to the elect nor to these in his covenant at mount Sinai though he made these promises to some of the natural seed of Israel neither Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. nor Gen. 4.15 16. Compared with Gen. 6.1 2. nor Gen. 17.18.19 20 21. compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12. and Gal. 4. nor Heb. 12 15 16.17 prove that either Cain or Ishmael or Esau were ever in the Covenant of Evangelical grace nor is there any text that proves that he new covenant is intailed to natural generations of the most Godly men Mr. C. in answer to the tenth objection saith thus But it 's false to say the Commandement gave right to Covenant Interest since Covenant right was first promised and declared to be the ground of that commanded service of the initâ—atory seal Gen. 17 7 8 9 10 11. c. Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant He doth not say you must be or are circumcised and therefare I will be your God But I will be a God to thee and thy seed therefore thou and they shall be circumcised the nature of a seal supposeth a Covenant to be sealed To which I reply I confess it were ridiculous for any to say the commandement gave right to covenant-interest or covenant-right For what is covenant-interest but interest in the covenant and covenant-right but right from the covenant But setting aside Mr C. his inept phrasifyings which I count to be Paedobaptists-gibberish it is not false but manifest truth that it is the command of God onely that gave title to persons to be circumcised and is the Rule to know who are to be circumcised and who not as I have often proved and shewed to be in effect confessed by Mr M. As for Mr. C. his inference from thou therefore Gen 17.9 it is answered often before in the first part of this Review Sect. 5. and elswhere that neither is the reading certain thou therefore nor doth the inference arise meerly from the promise v. 7. nor is the inference at all of a right to circumcision but of a duty nor is this duty urged from each circumcised persons interest in the covenant but Gods making it with Abraham Nor is it true That the nature of a Seal supposeth a covenant to be sealed sith other things are to be sealed as Letters Books Stones Men Fountains c. besides covenants Abrahams circumcision Rom. 4.11 was a seal not of a covenant of some things to be done but of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised if it were true yet is it as little to the purpose sith there may be a covenant sealed to a person that hath no interest in the promise as when ones name is used onely as a Trustee for others And for what is said That the commandment required only a male of eight dayes old to be circumcised which Mr. C. seems to conceive false meaning not before the eighth day is so plain by reading the chapter that I should make question of his wit or his forehead that should deny it And the reason thus exprest is as frivolous The promise heing made indefinitely to the seed whether male or female and not to the eighth day old seed but to the seed albeit but a day old For though the promise be to the child of one day old yet the command is not to him nor is
outward Covenant externall covenant-interest of Infants and such like are mistaâ—es upon the imâ—gined connexion between the covenant of grace and the initiall seal as hey call it Now to Mr C. his proof His proof is from Rom. 9.7 â— 9 10 11 16. That elect infants were Abrahams seed in covenant which I deny not but say that Rom. 9.8 proves not only that all the elect seed be included in the promise Gen. 17.7 but also that the Apostle expresly affirms that onely the elect are the children of the promise understood spiritually and they only Abrahams seed Acta Synod Dordrac Judiâ— profess Belgic de 20. Art pag. 113. Haec propositio solis electis hoe promissiones sunt factae ex professo probatur à Paulo Rom. 9.7.8 Ames Coron Art 5. c. 2. Seminis inâ—ulcatio solos electos efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc locum interpretante Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Mr. Rutherford Exercit. Apolog. 2 c. 2. num 7. Soli electi dicuntur in Scripturis faederati filii hoeredes promssionis Rom. 9 8. Mr Norton Mr C. his Colleague commended by Mr. Coâ—ton with him Respons ad Apollon c. 2. pag. 30. Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi Dr. Twiss Animadv in Corvin pag. 235. Negamus Deum pacisci faedus gratiae cum omnibus singulis dicimus hâ—c fieri solum cum electis More may be seen to this purpose in my Examen part 3 Sect. 4 in this part of the Review Sect. 33. and almost in every Prâ—tâ—stant Wrâ—â—er of note whâ— opposeth the Remonstrants of Belgia and other patrons of Universall grace freewill and falling away from grace But what Mr C. saith and I grant proves not that Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in Church estate before the Infants can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the eovenant are Abrahams Church seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 belongs but the conâ—rary Nor is it heâ—eby proved that such Infants are covenanters ingaged or as Ifants of Abraham and Isaac children of the promise as if 〈◊〉 formalis ratio of their childrens being children of the promise wâ—re Abrahams and Isaacs believing and inchurching as Mr. C. seems to conceive it being contrary to the express determination of the Apostle Rom 9.8 which excludes Ishmael and Esau from being children of the promise Nor is it true that the change of Abrahams name Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 c. compared proves that the children of believers inchurched are Abrahams seed but onely thâ—t believers of all nations are such Rom. 4.17 Mr C. glanceth at a passage in my Examen page 96. wherein I say that the Apostle Rom. 4 12. makes Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of faith but not to all or only circumcised persons but to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles so that according to the Apstles doctrine Circumcision in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised so that it is so far from being true that persons have the promise therefore they must have the seal in their persons that it follows persons have the promise therfore they have the seal in Abraham â—hough they never are nor may be sealed in their own persons To this Mr. C. saith The Apostles discourse cleareth it to be otherwise his scope being not to infringe any Gospel-right to the Gospel-seâ—l but to take off any reasoning in point of justification from any work of the Law considered apart from Christ As for the sealing of Abrahams believing children the Gentiles in Abrahâ—ms sealing if that were intended as much might have been affirmâ—d of the bâ—lieving children of Abraham as they such and so the circumcising of such Iewes at least had been more than were needed â—o far forth I reply I grant the scope to be â—o prove Iustification by faith but I say in respect of the present point the words prove no more but that Abrahams personall ciâ—cumcision was to him and all that belive as he did whether Jewes or Gentiles the seal of the righâ—eousness of Faith And I do acknowledge that if that were all the use of ciâ—cumcision there was no simple necessity of any Iew believer to be circumcised in their own persons yet God might think good ex abundanti more abâ—ndantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his Councell as the words are Heb. 6 17. and therefore would have them also circumcised in thâ—ir own persons to that end But however there werâ— other ends of circumcision as â—he prefiguring of Christ to come the distinguishing the Israelites from oâ—her people c. And therefore notwithstanâ—ing Abrahams circumcision sealed to Jew-believers the righteousness of faiâ—h yet it was not needless that they should themselves be circumcised in their own persons for the ends to which God appointed it And the command being express for their circumcision they could plead no exemption from their personall circumcision upon that pretence that quatenuâ— believers they were circumcised in the circumcision of tâ—eir father Abraham while the command stood in force no not though all the ends had ceased as that Christ were come all other nations were circumcised as well as they c. I say had these ends and all other ceased yet without Gods releasing of the command they were to be circumcised How little that Act of Christ Lukeâ—8 â—8 1â— 16 17. with Mark 10.16 makes for Mr C. his purpose is shewed in the second part of the Review before and so likewise how impertinently Esayâ— 1.9 65 22. are alleged is shewed before in this part of the Review I neither grant that inchurched Gentile visible believers are any other where called Abrahams spirituall seed Nor do I think Anabaptists wil grant that if they were then are their children also But saith he The parents being not meerly abstractively considered the Covenant-seed Gen. 17.7 â—ut as in reference to their childen with them For the seed of Abraham to whom the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is made is the seed in their geâ—erations which necessarily imply and suppâ—se as the parents generating so thâ— children begotten of them the parents make not the generation alone nor the children alone but â—oyntly considered together Answer No person is the Covenant-seed Gen. 17 7. but Abrahams seed which being meant of his naturall seed so it includes all descended from him by Isaac and Jacob in their â—uture gâ—nerations if meant of his spirituall seed their gâ—nerations notes either the ages in which they were born by natural generation or by spiritual regeneration by Fathers in Christ who beget them by the Gospel 1 Cor. 4 15. But saith Mr. C. Here Anabaptists sever the subject parties taken into the covenant-consideration they agree it 's Abraham his spiritual seed but leave out the notation of the seed soil seed in their generations the proselyte Gentiles in Abrahams house they were not his carnall seed why are they
then sealed but as they were Abrahams spiriâ—ual and Church-seed Answer We sever not the subject parties taken into Covenant consideration as Mr. C. speaks but distinguish them Nor do we leave out that Noâ—ation of Seed scil in their generations but take it in as I have said the Proselytes if believers as Abraham they are his seed by Faith if noâ— they are not 〈◊〉 seed according to Scripture Abrahams Church-Seed is a new-devised term without Scripture Yet the proselytes and their chiâ—dren were to be circumcised by vertue of the command whether they had any part in the covenant or not as being in his house though not of his seed And if by Gods solemnly enjoyning a Seal to a Blank or a seal to no Covenant of his â—e meant that circumcision of the Proselytes was a token of that Covenant which was no covenant of Gods I deny it it was a Covenant of Gods in which he made many promises it was not a token of a Covenant that assured nothing as a paper in which noâ—hing is written which we call a Blank there were promises and persons specified in the covenant But if the meaning be this That God solemnly enjoyned that such should be circumcised to whom no promise was made in that Covenant I grant it true Ishmael c. and count it no absurdity to say God in that sense did solemnly enjoyn the Seal to be put to a Blank Circumcision in the Institution of it was a token or signe of the Covenant made with Abraham Rom. 4.11 to be a Seal of the righteousness of Faith is said of no ones circumcision but Abrahams What Mr. C. means That it was a seal of the righteousness of Faith not so much Subjectivè as Objectivè Rom. 4. I understand not except this be his meaning that it did seal not so much the righteousness of faith to the persons circumcised as this truth That righteousness is by faith Being understood of Abrahams personall circumcision I concâ—ive it sealed both wayes of any other mans circumcision I find not the Apostle calling it the Seal of the righteousness of Faith But of Seals and sealing I have spoken sufficiently in sundry Sections before I shall not contend about that passage That the Baptism of Simon Magus was in the nature of it and Gods institution a visible Seal of the most spirituall part of the covenant and yet did not Iscariot and Magus partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant my former explication being remembred And I take it as true which next followes It is peculiar to the elect to be in the covenant in respect of the participation of the saving efficacy of it Rom. 9.6 7 8. And hence observe that none but the elect are rightly said to be in the covenant of grace For none are in the covenant of grace but they to whom it is made for what is it to be in the covenant but to have it made to him So the Directory so Rom. 9.8 But they to whom the covenant of grace is made are the elect onely The covenant of grace is the covenant of Saving grace Heb. 8.10 11 10.16 Rom. 11.26 1 Cor. 11.25 Heb. 13.20 of Regeneration Iustification c. But that is made onely to the Elect Ergo. The Minor is proved thus They to whom it is made they have the saving efficacy otherwise God should make it and not perform it and so his Word fall which is not to be granted But the elect onely have the saving efficacie as Mr. C. conâ—esseth Ergo. I deny not Reprobates may in respect of their own profession be said to be externally in the covenant of grace in appearance to meâ— in the face of the visible Church but not in respect of Gods promise and before him which they say is sealed in the Sacrament Nor do I deny the appointment of God to be to circumcise or baptize Reprobates as well as elect and that the nature of these ordinances is the same on both sorts though the use and efficacy in part be various Nor do I deny the covenant with Abraham one yet hold it is mixt which is proved from the words of Mr C. here in that it holds forth variety of covenant-blessings some more common to all and some more peculiar to a few But I deny the Gospel doth hold forth blessing common to any other than the godly It is true there are promises of this life 1 Tim. 4.8 1 Cor. 3.22 Mark 10.30 and Reprobates have some such outward things as the elect as cloaths aiâ—e life but not as blessings from the Gospel neither sanctified in the same manner nor upon the sâ—me tenure As for circumcision it was the covenant metonymically onely and did confirm the whole covenant sacramentally to elect and reprobate Mr. C. yet adds That if that sort of persons to wit Infants or Abrahams spirituall seed without personall actuall faith by which it 's said onely persons come to be Abrahams seed it 's enough to prove that Gentile inchurched believers infants are the the seed of Abraham But that is fully proved from Gal. 3.7.6.9.16.27 28 29. where by Christ is meant Christ mysticall that is Christ with his Body the Church as 1 Cor. 12.13 If then Infants be not Abrahams seed then are they not members of Christ nor of the invisible Church and so are without salvatiâ—n To which I answer That I never denied that elect infants were Abrahams spirituall seed nor said onely by actuall faith persons are Abrahams spiritual seed but grant that some infants are Abrahams spirituall seed whether by election onely or by seed of faiâ—h or by such a special secret work as is unknown to us like Jacobs struggling in the womb and taking hold on his brothers heel or John Baptists leaping in the womb of his mother for joy and so are of the body of Christ and members of the invisible Church and thereby saved But I deny that infants of Gentile believers whether elect or not are Abrahams spiritual seed and in that respect in the covenant of grace or promise of God being their God and thereby admitted to baptism But Mr. C. adds I say to exclude that sort of persons scil believers Infants from being a part of the visible-church in generaâ— is to exclude them from any ordinary state and way of salvation Nay I will go further and say that for any to suppose all the individual Infants and each of them which came of such inchurched parents not to be also parâ—s of this body of Christ the visible Church and consequently not to be Abrahams spiritual seed is to exclude them from a state and way of salvation In respect to the ordinary course thereoâ— and so to leave them all under the consideration of such a way to be saved in as is only extraordinary ordinarily they are not to be supposed to be saved or at least it is not to be supposed that ordinarily or that in an ordinary way any Pagans or
the Gospel of God held out of God to his peâ—ple salvation is made over by vertue of Covenant to all thus in Covenant in that sense as Christ speaks Joh. 4.22 salvation is of the Jews In that sense as Christ usâ—th it of Zacheus family this day is salvation come to this house Luk. 19.9 In that sense as the Apostle to the Hebrews speaks of it where he sets out the danger of neglecting so great salvation Heb. 2.3 In that sense as I conceive the Apostle speaks of it where he saith that upon the call of the Jews all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11.26 Answ. That by salvation Luk. 19.9 Heb. 2.3 Rom. 11.26 is not meant outward priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained hath been shewed before Sect. 44. And though I grant that salvation is said to be of the Jews in that from them was the doctrine of salvation yet I see no necessity to expound the term salvation metonymically as if by salvation were meant barely the doctrine of salvation but the sense may be truely conceived thus salvation remission of sins justification adoption eternal life is of the Jews as instruments by preaching the Gospel of converting and so saving men But that God when he promised Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as this promise is Evangelical meant this all the professors of faith and their seed shall enjoy those priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained is proved false 1. In that the writers of the New Testament never so explain it but where the promise is mentioned as Evangelical they declare it imports a further thing proper to the elect and true believers 2 That they never by Abrahams seed as Evangelically understood mean any other then elect persons and true believers both which are proved largely before Sect. 28. 3. That in this sense the promise were not made good for God doth not make good to every professour of faith that he shall have â—hose priviledges as to be baptized be in Church-communion have the the Lords supper have a Pastour to preach the Gospel much less to every one of his natural seed as frequent experience shews 4. By this exposition nothing is assured to the infant of a believer or to a professour of faith which is not also to an unbelievers child yea to an unbeliever who as well as they have title to saving grace and justification to eternal life upon termes and conditions in the Gospel of God held out of God to his people Mr. Bl. adds And this that professors of faith or believers upon their call shall enjoy those priviledges in which salvation upon Gods terms may be obtained is all that câ—n by any means be squeezed out of their words that say the Covenant of grace was made of God with Abraham and hiâ— natural seed or with believers and their seed It is even irksome to read the large business that Mr. T. makes of it to finde out Mr. Ms. meaning about the Covenant of God made with Abraham and his seâ—d and both Mr. M. and my self must per force confess that we mean â—t of a Covenant infallibly absolutely to confer grace and consâ—quently salvation Answ. 1. That more may be squeezed out is proved in my Exam. part 3. sect 3. in this parâ— of the Review sect 30.31 c. And if no more be mâ—ant by them these things wâ—ll follow 1. That they mean by the Covenant of grace a covenant of outward priviledges of viable Câ—urch-membership Baptism the Lords Supper to every beleever by profâ—ssion though a Gentile and his natural seed under the pretence of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which pretended outward Covenant of outward priviledges is a meer counterfeit neither Gen 17.7 nor any where else to be found in the holy Scripture 2. They do most grosly abuse the text Gen. 17.7 for proving such a Covenant quite besides the expositions given of it throughout the New Testament as is proved in this Part of the Revew sect 28. and quite besides the expositions even of the reformed Divines though Paedobaptists in their commentaries on the N. T. and writings against Arminians 3. They do mock Readers most palpably 1. in telling them the Covenant of grace cenâ—ains the promise of remission of sins c. is for substance the same in all ages and say it belongs to all the infants of beleevers that they are in it that is that Covenant of grace they are confederate with parents as the words of the Directory Mr M. and others cited by me Exam part 3 sect 3 shew and yet deny this Covenant of saving grace is made to them all but upon such conditions as upon which it is made to unbeleevers children yea to every man in the world 2. In that they when they make the Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace and attempt to prove it from Rom. 4.11 which mentions onely a seal of the righteousness of faith they make them seals of the righteousneâ—s of faith and say infants are in the Covenant and the seal must follow the Covenant and yet nevertheless deny all the infants they baptize by vertue of being in the Covenant of which Baptism is a seal to be in that Covenant of which Baptism is a seal but say they are in a meer imaginary Covenant which they call an outward Covenant of which Baptism is no seal but rather according to their conceits the thing it self covenanted or promised 3. They mock parents by telling them in wrâ—tings and sermons that they are to be comforted concerning their children that if they be beleevers their children are saved by vertue of the promise Gen. 17.7 that they are bound to beleeve it and yet when they are pressed with the Apostles determination Rom. 9.6 7 8. and other arguments they deny that they understand it of the â—ovenant of saving grace which alone can infer salvation infallibly and absolutely to confer grace but either they make it onely conditional if they repent and beleeve which no man is sure any infant doth or they say in the judgement of charity which is fallible and is no object of faith we are to take them to be in Covenant and to bâ— saved or else they say which is now the common shifâ— they are in the outward Covenant which is a figment and of which they cannot say but that a person may be in it and not saved 4. That sith it is commonly conceived by readers and hearers that they mean that which Mr. M. Mr G. Mr. Bl. c. do disclaim Paedobaptists are bound to â—each the people at their baby sprinklings and at other tiâ—es when they avouch the infants of beleevers and of meer visible professors of faith to be in the Covenant of grace Genâ— 17 7. and thereupon derive their title to Baptism that they mean but as Mr. M. Mr. Bl. say that they may acquit themselves from deceiving the people and being
may further them Of which though much may be said I shall say no more because I will not stand on things so much questioned Answ. I might then well have omitted this as of no validity but to shew the multiplicity of Paedobaptists errours He gâ—es on thus I come next to prove from other parts of Scripture That the fundamental promise of Grace is thus to â—e interpreted as including infants 1. If the same Covenant of grace when it is more fully and clearly opened do expresly comprehend infants as to be Churchmembers then is this fundamental promise so to be understood or then doth this also comprehend them But the antecedent is certain therefore so is the consequent The antecedent I prove from the Covenant of grace made to Abraham the father of the faithful which comprehended infants for Churchmembers The Covenant made with Abraham comprehending infants was the same with this in Gen. 3. but in some things clearlier opened Which is proved thus Both these were the Covenant of grace and free justification by faith in the Redeemer therefore they were the same For there is but one such If Abraham had some special promises additional to the main Covenant that makes not the Covenant of free justification by faith to be divers That this in Gen. 3. is the promise or Covenant of grace and free justification is not denied that I know of That the promise to Abraham was the same is evident from Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. 1. It is there expresly manifest that the Covenant whereof Circumcision was to Abraham the seal was the Covenant of free justification by faith Circumcision it self being a seal of the righteousness of Faith which Abraham had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the Father of believers c. 2. Yea the promise that he should be heir of the world was not made to Abraham or to his seed through the Law buâ— through the righteousness of faith Now it 's certain that this Covenant sealed by Circumcision and made to Abraham and his seed did comprehend infants The consequence of the mâ—jor then iâ— evident that the same promise expressed more concisely is to bee expounded by the same expressed more fully And it 's acknowledged that the Gospel light and grace was to be manifest by certain degrees Answ. That the fundamental promise of grace Gen. 3.15 did include infants was never denied by me and therefore Mr. B. doth but waste paper and abuse me and his Readers by going about to prove it This I deny that it includes all infants or all infants of believers and that any infant is made a visible Churchmember by that promise as the next cause or the sole efficient which is Mr. Bs. term neither of these is proved by him I grant that the Covenant to Abraham was the Covenant of Evangelical grace though mixt as I have often shewed and that it did include infants and that they were Churchmembers to wit of the invisible Church of the elect I mean so many as the Covenant of Evangelical grace was made to I grant also that Abrahams infants in his house were visible Churchmembers but not by vertue of the Covenant barely as Evangelical but by vertue of the transeunt fact before asserted by me and if in any respect by vertue of the Covenant it was by it as containing houshold or civil promises rather thâ—n Evangelical So that although I deny that from Rom. 4.10 11 12 13 14. it is proved that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen 17. and that the promises Gen. 17.4.5 6 8. were additional to the main Covenant and not as well the main Covenant as v. 7 yet I grant Mr. Bs. conclusions which he here infers that the promises Gen. 3.15 17.7 did comprehend infants that there is but one Covenant of free justification by faith in both places that the one may explain the other that infants were from the beginning Churchmembers that is members of the invisible Church of the â—lect But this I deny that this is true of all or perhaâ—s onely of the infants of believers or that because they are of the invisible therefore they are members of the visible Church there being more required to make visible Church-members then election the Covenant of grace and parents faith But Mr. B. adds â— That the first fundamental promise is thus to be interpreted I further prove by Gods constant administration in the performance of it Concerning which I do make this challenge to you with modesty and submission to prove if you can that there was ever one Churchmember that had infants born to him while he was in that estate from the beginning of the world to this day whose infants also were not Churchmembers Except onely the Anabaptists who refuse or deny the mercy and so refuse to dedicate their infants in Baptism unto Christ. And whether their infants be Churchmembers I will not determine affirmatively or negatively at this time I do again urge you to it that you may not forget it to prove to me that ever there was one infant of a Churchmember in the world since the creation to this day that was not a Churchmember except the Anabaptists that refuse the mercy or deny it Answ. Mr. B. undertakes to prove Gods constant administration but instead of proving sends me a challenge and hoâ—ly urgeth me to answer it which course indeed is ridiculous to the intelligent yet subdolous as taking much with shallow heads who know not the laws of Dispute as if he got the better of me if I did not answer it But let such know 1 That it is Mr. Bs. part now to prove mine onely to answer 2. That if I could not answer either through defâ—ct of reading memory histories in such matters or such like cause yet this is no proof of Mr. Bs. assertion 3. That I have no reason to answer Mr. Bs. questions and challenges but his arguments 1. Because I find a meer captious spirit in him seeking advantage to himself from my words which he very seldome doth rightly represent to the Reader when he wants proof of his assertions as appears most evidently in this his answer to my Letter in which he hath gathered almost half his answer besides the business propounded from my writing to him 2. That the understandings of men even of Scholiers and Learned men are so superficial or so partial that without ever examining yea or reading my writings upon Mr. Bs. exclamations and vile suggestions of me and mine answers they do most unrighteously and like men that seek not the truth conclude on his side scorn and speak evil of me and the cause I assert which is indeed the cause of Christ of which I have much experience 4. Nevertheless I answer his challenge categorically thus 1. No infant born of a Churchmember was a visible Churchmember in the Christian Church or any other besides that of the Nation of the Hebrews as I have proved before
Church to be at Abrahamsâ—all â—all from Ur. 1. There is no one word of that in the text 2. Lot came out of Ur with Abraham yea and from Haran and lived with him were not Lot and his infants Churchmembers then Answ. 1. I confess a promise to Abraham but not that Abraham or his infants were visible Churchmembers by it as the soâ—e or next efficient cause 2. What word is in the text for the beginning of the Jewish people to be Gods Church at Abrahams call out of Ur is shewed above from Isai 51.1 2. Nehem. 9.7 Acts 7.1 2. 3. Lot came along with Abram to Canaan but was there parted from him and all along they were severed and therefore Lot though a righteous man yet was not of the same Church with Abrams house nor his infants if he had any visible Churchmembers because God intended not to make his house and posterity his Church visible 3. Saith Mr. B. The chief note I intend is this that there is no more said then to prove infants Churchmembers then what wee have shewed was said long before and is said after the Gentiles infants no nor so much If therefore the passage of Abraham out of Ur yea or the promise made to him in Haran Gen. 12.2 3. will prove infants Churchmembership then have we as good proof of it to the Gentile Church as to the Jews Answ. I neither make Abrahams passage out of Ur nor the promise in Haran or rather in Ur. Gen. 12.2 3. to be that which made infants visible Churchmembers in the Hebrew nation but Gods special call or taking the house of Abraham entirely to bee his people which Mr. B hath not nor can shew to have been done to any other people And here saith he I note further that in the beginning before the command for Circumcision you plainly yeild that infants Church-membership is a thing separable from Circumcision and begun not with it but before And indeed I think I have evinced that to you in my Book of Baptism Abraham himself was not made a member by Circumcision but circumcised because a member of Christs Church by faith Ishmael was a member before and so was Isaac and the infants born in Abrahams house Answ. I grant visible Churchmembership was before Circumcision in Abrahams house but not that Abraham was circumcised under this formal consideration as a member of Christs Church by faith but as one to whom it was commanded by God Mr. B. goes on Whether there were any promise or precept of this but a meer transeunt fact let the text last mentioned and the following bear witness Gen. 12.2 3. In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed and Gen. 17.7 9 10. And I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee and I will be their God And God said to Abraham Thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generaâ—ions This is my Covenant which you shall keep between me and you c. to vers 15. In all this let these things be noted 1. That here is an expres promise or Covenant to Abraham and his seed after him 2. That it is not onely de praesenti but for the future called an everlasting Covenant 3. That this promise or Covenant doth manifestly imply and include infants Churchmembership as you confess 4. That yet here is not the least word that intimates an institution of it de novo but rather the contrary plainly intimated The promises before Gen. 17. are mainly about the multiplication of Abrahams seed What is that to Churchmembership except what Intimates the promised seed of which anon Hagar hath a promise also of the multiplication of Ishmaels seed And the very precept of Circumcision is onely one part of the infant members viz. the males and therefore it cannot be foundation of their Churchmembership which leaves out half the members 5. Note that the promise that God will be their God doth expresly contain the Churchmembership of the seed 6. Note that this is more then a transeunt fact Ergo being an everlasting Covenant Had it been a natural transeunt fact that had left no permanent title behind it in the obligation of the Covenant then it had been null and void as soon as spoken then the word of God is but a bare sound and of no further force 7. Note that the Apostle as is said Rom. 4.10 11 12 13. doth fully manifest to us that this promise was made to Abraham as a believer and that Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith which hee had yet being uncircumcised and therefore that the chief part of the Covenant of having God for our God and his taking us as his peculiar people belongs to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews 8. And he oft sheweth that the faithful are Abrahams seed and therefore the chief blessings of the promise belong to all the faithful But one of the blessings was that their infants should be comprehended in the same Church and Covenant Ergo the infants of the faithful who are the heirs of the same promise must be comprehended in it too Answ. 1. I deny not the promise Gen. 17.7 to include infants Church-membership but that I confess that it doth manifestly imply and include infants visible Churchmembership Mr. B. cannot shew 2. The promise that God will bee their God doth not expresly contain the visible Churchmembership of infants For God may be God to them who are not visible Churchmembers and he may not be God to them who are 3. If in the promises Gen. 12.2 3. Gen. 17.7 and the precept Gen. 17.9 10. there be no institution de novo nor foundation of infants Church-membership then in ants Churchmembership visible which was not before Abrahams dayes hath not foundation in the promises and precept but the transeunt fact I have mentioned 4. Though I conceive that a transeunt fact may create a permanent title as a gift a delivery into our hands without a promise for future may create a permanent title nor do I deny that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 did leave a permanent title behinde it yet I deny that the visible Churchmembership of infants in Abrahams house was by a title to be legally claimed or by the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as the causa procreans of it though it might bee the causa conservans of it in that it assured some of those acts whereby it was continued 5. I deny that the Apostle Rom. 4.10 11 12 13. doth at all much less fully manifest to us that the promise Gen. 17.7 was made to Abraham as a believer though I grant what Mr. B. infers from it in his 7th note The Apostle doth plainly manifest that in the Gospel sense it was made to Abraham as father of believers 6. It is denied as most certainly false that one of the blessings of the promise Gen. 17.7 to the faithful Gentiles was that their infants should
Apostle fully sheweth that the promise upon which his priviledges were grounded was not made to Abraham upon legal grounds but upon the ground of faith From whence I might draw many arâ—â—ments but for brevity I desire you to peruse the Chapter onely from the eleventh verse And hee received c. From whence I thus argue If infants then usually were entred and engaged Churchmembers by that Circumcision which was a seal of the righteousness of faith and was not given on legal grounds then that Churchmembership of infants is not repealed as beeing built on grounds of Gospel and not Law and sealed with a durabâ—e seal that is the seal of the righteousness of faith But the antecedent is plain in the text Answ It is true Rom. 4.13 14 16 20 21. there is mention of Gods promise to Abraham and in particular two speeches are cited v. 17. Gen. 17.5 I have made thee a father of many nations which implies a promise v. 18. Gen. 5.5 So shal thy seed be it is true the privileâ—ges of justification by faith of the father of believers of heir of the world 〈◊〉 by faith and the promise but that his visible Churchmemhership 〈◊〉 infants was by promise is not said nor is there a word in that Chapter or elsewhere â—o prove that Churcmembership of infants was built on grounds of Gospel and not Law or that it was sealed or that the seal was durable which was termed the seal of the righteousness of faith or that the Circumcising of any person besides Abraham was a seal of the righteousness of faith and therefore I deny the minor which hee termes the antecedent and the consequence of the major also For if his reason were good I might by the same medium thus argue If that Circumcision by which infants were usually then entred and engaged Churchmembers was a seal of the righteousness of faith and was not given on legal grounds then that Circumcision of infants is not repealed But the antecedent is plain in the Text Ergo. What answer Mr. B. gives to this argument will also answer his own and I presume he will not hold Circumcision unrepealed which hee must if his argument be good Mr. B. addes I urged this on Mr. T. many years ago and all his answer was that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal to others that should come after of the unrighteousness of Abrahams faith but no otherwise A strange answer and very bold I hear that since he answereth that it was onely such a seal of Abrahams righteousness by faith but not of others afterward Answ. I am sure Mr. B. in this as he doth almost in every thing I have spoken written or done which he hath had occasion to mention doth mis-report me my anâ—wer to him and others was not as he and they represent it This is my answer 1. That Rom. 4.11 no other persons Circumcision but Abrahams is termed the seal of the righteousness of faith 2. That to Abraham his Circumcision was a seal of that righteousness by faith which hee had afore bee was circumcised 3. That Abrahams personal Circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith to all that believe as he did and to no other 4. That the usuâ—l Ciâ—cuâ—cision of infants was not a seal of the righteousness of faith or of the Covenant of grace to every circumcised person But saith Mr. B. 1. The Text seems to speak of the nature and use of Circumcision and the end of its institution as being ordained at first of God to seal onely a Gospel righteousness of faith and not a legal righâ—eousness of works or ceremonies Answ. 1. If Circumcision were at first ordained of God to seal a Gospel righteousness of faith then it did not seal visible Churchmembership of infants for that is not a Gospel righteousness of faith sith it may bee without Gospel righâ—eousness or faith and these may bee without it as Mr. B. saith in this Chapter 2. The nature use and end of Circumcision in others is not at all expressed Rom. 4. â—â— but onely of Abrahams 3. The use and end of Circumcision was at first to signifie that Covenant God entered into with Abraham Gen. 17. after to binde the circumcised to observe the law of Moses as the Apostle conceived it Gal. 5.3 2. Saith he Doth God institute a standing ordinance to endure till Christ to have one end for him to whom it was first given 〈◊〉 another to all others Is not the nature end and use of Sacramâ—â—ts or holy engaging signs and seals the same to all though the fruit be not alway the same These are poor shifts against a manifest truth which deserve not answer Answ. 1. Doth not Mr. B. of baptism p. 2. ch 2. himself answer that baptism which he terms a Sacrament or holy engaging signe and seal hath more ends and uses then one and that the infant is capable of some though not of others yea though he make the end to be in the definition of Sacraments that it is of their nature to be signs and so no Sacraments but what do signifie yet hee will have baptism to bee a Sacrament to an infant to whom it never is any signe or signifies any thing for the baptised infant either never saw it or never saw it as a signe of the engagemâ—nt Mr. B. speaks of and so it is never a signe to the baptised the Baptism leaving no visible impression on the body as Circumcision did to signifie to the infant when hee comes to age Whence I infer 1. That according to Mr. Bs. own doctrine the Sacrament of Baptism hath one end to those to whom it was first given to wit to signifie their owning of Christ as their Lord and another end to almost all others to wit infants to seal them Gods promise without their personal owning of Christ. 2. That according to him the nature end and use of Sacraments or holy engaging signs and seals is not the same to all for Baptism is no holy engaging sign to an infant who doth neither signifie by it nor hath any thing signified to it by it no nor is naturally capable of it and consequently it is no Sacrament to it sith it is not either actually or potentially a sign to the infant no not when grown up of any thing signified by it 2. Doth not Mr. B. acknowledge that Abrahams Circumcision did seal the righteousness of saith which he had being yet uncircumcised sure he will not deny this which the Apostle expresly teacheth But sure it had not that end in all others therefore he must acknowledge one end of Circumcision for Abraham which to all others it had not 3. About the nature end and use of Sacraments I have expressed in part my mind before sect 31. Nor either there or here do I use any shifts against a manifest truth but Mr. B. haâ—h levied a company of poor feeble arguments which but for the shallowness or prejudice of Paedobaptists
to be delivered by the Apostle Col. 2.17 and by the general consent of Divines Much more vain is that which he adds So as if that priviledge be denied unto infants that which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant is rejected as he saith Gen. 17. The uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people he hath broken my Covenant For neither if Mr. Cs. sense of the promise Gen. 22.18 Gen. 12.2 3. be rejected is there any thing which was given to us in Abrahams Covenant rejected nor had the denying of Circumcision to infants necessarily inferred the rejecting of that which was given in Abrahams Covenant nor do the words Gen. 17.14 import that by not circumcising the person omitting it had rejected that which was given in Abrahams Covenant for so Moses not circumcising his son had rejected the Covenant but the breaking the Covenant was onely meant of breaking the command of that which was the token of the Covenant Much less is this true of those that deny infant Baptism that they reject the spiritual blessings given in Abrahams Covenant Baptism being not by Christs institution a seal of Gods Covenant or promise to us unless by consequence much less the mixt Covenant of Abraham as it contained domestical benefits proper to Abrahams house much more less the new conceited promise of Mr. C. Nor was infant Baptism ever commanded by God but invented by men in a fond imitation of Jewish Circumcision and as long as we keep close to the institution Matth. 28.19 and baptize and are baptized upon believing in testimony of our union with Christ and his Church 1 Cor. 12.13 we may securely flight Mr. Cs. doom of being cut off from Gods people which after Mr. Cotton refuted by me in the second part of this Review sect 11. he hath vainly here renewed to affright silly people with Mr. C. adds That Abraham was called father of believers 1. from believing this additional promise given in order to the increase of his spiritual seed which he proves from Rom. 4.18 Gen. 15.5 2. From his receiving the seal of that promise Rom. 4.11 From which place we may observe 1. That Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith 2. That because it was a seal of that righteousness which he had before he was circumcised he therefore became the Father of all that believe whether circumcised or not Now had not this seal been given him that he might be the Father of believers his receiving it at this or that time whether before or after his believing to righteousness had made nothing for the universality of his relation as a Father of all believers Answ. I grant that Abrahams believing the promise Gen. 15.5 and his receiving Circumcision a seal of that righteousness of faith he had in uncircumcision was the reason of his title of Father of believers And I grant that Abrahams personal Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers circumcised or uncircumcised and therefore he had it afore his Circumcision that it might not be judged as proper to the circumcised But 1. I deny That the promise was Gen. 15.5 as Mr. Cs. additional promise is that Every believer should be a blessing to his family and posterity so as that God should ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents but that Abraham though then childless should have innumerable children by natural generation though he were and his wife aged and more by believing as he did 2. The Scripture doth not say that Abrahams Circumcision was a seal of the promise Gen. 15.5 but a seal of the rightiousness of faith he had Gen. 15.6 it was not a seal of a promise of a thing future but of a benefit obtained many years before 3 I find not any ones Circumcision but the Circumcision which Abraham had in his own person stiled the seal of the righteousness of faith nor to any but him that believes as he did 4. That his receiving the seal is not made the reason of Abrahams relation of Father of all believers but justification by faith afore he received Circumcision Nor do I find that any of Mr. Cs. assertions is proved from Rom. 4.11 18. that Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or of Mr. Cs. additional promise or that the application to infants was part of the seal or that by it Mr. Cs. imagined promise was confirmed and therefore this Text is impertinently alledged also Mr. C. adds That it was not Abrahams faith onely nor his degree of faith above others which gave him that title appeareth 1. because others were as eminent believers as he before him 2. There was something given which believers had not at least in such a way had not before in reference to which he was so called therefore it was not for his faith onely nor the eminency thereof 3. There is nothing in faith or the eminency thereof that could occasion that his name to be given to him but it was in reference to something which he was to have as a Father this additional promise and the seal thereof he was the first Father that received this blessing which was a blessing upon parents and their children and because at least in a great part by vertue thereof the holy seed was to be propagated and encreased And believers are said to be his seed because that promise and Covenant made to Abraham concerning the Lords blessing and multiplying his seed is so much a cause of their being brought forth unto Christ his ordering his election so as to bestow his blessing thus by families and nations being that which makes the Kingdome of Heaven like leaven one believer ordinarily being the means of the conversion of another Answ. The title Father of believers is a relative with which Abraham was denominated from his Fatherhood as the form denominating and this form denominating was from his begetting justified believers as the foundation this begetting justified believers I know not how otherwise it should be then by his exemplary faith and Gods declaration of his justification by it which the Apostle doth plainly intimate Rom. 4.11 by expressing Abrahams children in this phrase walking in the steps of his faith The object indeed of this faith was the promise Gen. 15.5 not Mr. Cs. imagined promise to other believers and so the promise was the occasion and in some sort the cause of the title as the object may be said to be the cause of the act in somewhat an abusive expression His personal Circumcision was a sign or seal of that whence the title came the righteousness of faith and a token of that Covenant wherein God declared it Gen. 17.4 5 But Circumcision did not make him such he was such afore Circumcision was instituted Gen. 17.4 5. Nor is it said Rom. 4.11 that his receiving Circumcision was that he might be the Father of the faithfull but his having righteousness by faith before Circumcision made him the Father of
seed we have it all in Christ and what we have in Christ we have it all as Abrahams seed and that we are baptized into Christ that is our initiation into Christ and what ever we have as Abrahams seed is sealed unto us in Baptism By which it is evident that as Circumcision was to them so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Answ. If this were granted yet Mr. Cs. purpose were not obtained that the application of the seal to infants were justified by the command Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. for the reasons before given But because I conceive these assertions contain errours such as do mislead Paeâ—obaptists I shall examine Mr. Cs. allegations and together with them Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his third Conclusion and what I find material in other of my Antagonists about the point of Baptisms succeeding Circumcision Two assertions are laid down here by Mr. C. 1. That Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision 2. That it is the very same for substance to us as circumcision was to Jews before Christ. Neither of which are true or proved by any thing brought by Mr. C. or any other though this be the chief thing they alledge for infant Baptism and Mr. Church p. 50. out of Dr. Whitaker tels us all the Anabaptists will not be able to resist this argument from circumcision Let 's try the strength of it The latter position seems to be this That as circumcision was to the Jews so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed But this is not all one as to be the very same for substance To be the very same for substance is an expression that is scarce capable of good sense neither Baptism nor Circumcision in proper acception being substances or having substance except as the subject of them as all accidents have As substance is put for essence so it cannot be said they are the same for substance sith cutting is one thing washing another and other Paedobaptists usually term them different administrations Circumâ—ision the old Baptism the new I grant Circumcision was the token of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. but that it was a seal of that Covenant in the sense usually meant by Paedobaptists or that any ones Circumcision was a seal but Abrahams much less that every ones Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of grace to him and his seed is more then I find in Scripture and how often I have proved it false may be seen in many of my writings specially the 3d. part of this Review But that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed is not true For 1. Baptism seals not at all the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 nor any other of the promises made to the natural seed of Abraham 2. Nor doth it seal the spiritual promises of the comming of Christ the calling of the Gentiles as they were made to Abraham and by Circumcision assured to be accomplished For then Baptism as Circumcision was should be a shadow and type of Christ to come and should cease as it did 3. The Evangelical Covenant or the promise oâ— righâ—eousness or eternal life by faith granted to be in the latent sense comprized in that Covenant I find no where in Scripture said to be sealed by Circumcision but rather that circumcision did bind persons to the keeping of the Law for righteousness Gal. 5.2 3. nor by baptism but by consequent The Scripture rather makes it a seal if it must be so called of our promise to God then of Gods promise to us Nor is there any thing Gal. 3.27.29 to prove either of Mr. Cs. conclusions that Baptism now is the seal of the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed or that it is now in the room of Circumcision For neither is it said that what wee have as Abrahams seed is sealed to us in Baptism wee are said indeed to put on Christ by Baptism but that whether the putting on be meant of spiritual union or outward profession it is ascribed to faith v. â—6 and our Baptism rather is made our seal to Christ then Gods to us nor is there any thing spoken v. 29. of any seed of Abraham but by faith so our Baptism cannot seal that Covenant which was made to Abrahams natural seed which was the use of Circumcision and therefore that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant or in the room of Circumcision is not proved thence But let 's view what is further said for them or either of them That our Baptism succeeds in the room place and use of Circumcicision is the common speech of Paedobaptists against it 1. I argued in my Examen that Baptism was a concomitant to circumcision it was among the Jew long afore Christ came and it was by Divine appointment from the Baptism of John till Christs death now that which succeeds comes after is not concurrent To this Mr. M. replied 1. by concession and thence would gather an argument for infant Baptism which is enervated in the 2d part of this Review sect 24. 2. Saith he A Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Defence p. 171. But this is not true a Lord Major elect doth not succed till hee bee sworn in the interim he is no Lord Major in being but onely in possibility and probability which may never bee A successour hath no place while the predecessour is present Jewel Defence of the Apol. part 2. c. 3. div 5. 2. I argued that in no good sense can Baptism be said to bee in the room and place of circumcision For neither in proper acception have either room or place nor taking room and place for the subjects circumcising and ciâ—cumcised baptizing and baptized is it true parents though private persons might circumcise not so in baptism women were to be baptized not so in circumcision These things are answered by Mr. M. either with censures of me which are but vain this argâ—ing being necessary to clear truth or by reference to what he had said before which is also fully refuted in the third part of this Review sect 18. I further said If by room and place be meant the society into which the circumcised and baptised were to be initiated it is not true For Baptism initiated into the Christian circumcision into the Jewish church To this Mr. M. If you mean onely the several administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speak truth but not to the purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into the same administration of the Covenant but if you mean that the Church of the Jews and wee are not one and the
true believers are termed the Circumcision in opposition to the Judaizing Teachers termed befor v. 2. the concision by a figure of speech termed Eutelism or slighting them in that in which they gloried and they are termed the Circumcision because they were truly circumcised before God in heart and were his people And the Jews 1 Cor. 12.13 are said to be baptized no otherwise then the Gentiles who believed who were not circumcised in the flesh and therefore could not be termed baptized because circumcised but Christian believers whether Jews or Greeks bond or free are all said to be baptized and to be made to drink because they were baptized with water and did partake of the Lords Supper as 1 Cor. 10.17 Mr. C. adds more of these toys Hence first instituted for a seal to the circumcised Jews to shew it was in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to them but the same with circumcision in a manner onely as that sealed it to them visibly in Christ as to come this did it in like sort in reference to Christ as come that was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith or that whereon his faith acted to righteousness of justification Rom. 4.11 even the promise of grace in Christ Rom. 10.6 7. with Deut. 30.14 Wherein 1. he dictates without any pretence of proof that Baptism was first instituted to the Jews to shew that which he says nor is there the least intimation thereof in Scripture 2. He seems to me to unsay by his limitation in a manner what he said before it was the same in the essentials For that which is the same in the essentials is altogether the same and not in a manner 3. It is false that baptism was the same in the essentials of sealing Abrahams covenant to the Jews with circumcision For it was as much in the essentials of sealing Abrahams Covenant to the Jews if I may use Mr. Cs. gibberish that Circumcision sealed the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 9 10 c. as that it sealed Christ to come but surely Baptism never sealed the promise of the land of Canaan 4 That which I find of the seal of the righteousness of faith Rom. 4.11 is meant of Abrahams personal Circumcision and of no other and therefore is inepâ—ly applied to prove sameness of sealing of others Circumcision and Baptism 5. I conceive it somewhat inconsiderately said that Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith which would impâ—y that it assured that Abraham faith was righteous whereaâ— the meaning is that it assured that Abraham had righteousness by faith before he was circumcised as v. 10. he had asserted 6. The other explication is worse for it iâ—timates as if the Apostle meant that the righâ—eouâ—ness of faith ascribed to Abraham is to termed as that whereon his faith aâ—ted to righteousness of justification even the promise of gâ—ace in Christ whereas the meaning is not that it sealed the righteousness he was to obtain by acting faâ—th in a promise but that it was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had many years before he was circumcised Mr. C. goes on in the same vâ—in of dictating thus Hence when Christ is called the minister of circumcision it is thus explained by the end of the sign administred â—cil to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers Rom 15.8 Act. 7.8 Gen. 17. â—1 Which speech seems to intimate as if Christ were termed the minister of circumcision as if he did minister Circumcision to that end to confirm the promises But that is too absurd for such a man to vent sith he ministrâ—d â—ircumcision to none and the meaning is plain that he was the minister of circumcision that is of the circumcised jews among whoâ—â—he preached and lived as Peter is said Gal. 2.8 to have had the Apostleshâ— of the circumcision that is of the circumâ—ised Jews And in this sense â—eza Willet Diodati the new Annot. Dicson Piscator c. expound it Now this being promised it is eaâ—â—e to percâ—ive how iâ—perâ—inently this â—ext wâ—ich mentions not at all Baptism nor any use of Circumcision at all but onely the end of Christs ministery among the circumcised is alledged to prove that Baptism agâ—ees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal The Texts Act. 7.8 Gen 17 1â— aâ—eas little tâ— the purpose there bâ—ing no mention of Baptism and they onely proving what is not denied that Circumcision was the token of Abrahamsâ—ovenant â—ovenant As little is that wâ—ich follows Hence the promise premised and then Baptism annexed as the seal Act. 2.38 For neither is it proved that the promise there is the same with Abrahams Covenant and how piâ—â—ifully Mr. C. mistakes the meaning of it is shewed before sect 22 23. nor a word about Baptism as a seal annexâ—d to the pâ—omise but an exhortation to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins and â—ssurance of the gift of the Holy Ghost which are annexed to repentance as much as to baptism What he adds Hence that washing annexed to the word Ephes. 5.25 26. But that the word there is the word of promise much less of Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17 or that it is mentioned as sealed by Baptism or thaâ— therein it agrees with Circumcision is not proved The word is the Gospel preached by which men are made believers and then baptized and so purified as Act. 15.9 Tit. 3.5 Act. 20.32 26.18 Job 3.15 17.17 c. Nor is it any more pertinent which follows 2. Saith he Itâ—s a baptizing in the name or covenant-fellowship of God the Father Son and Spirit he having exalted his word above all his name Psal. 138.2 Wherein 1. he seems to expound baptizing Matth. 28.19 into the name of the Father Son and Spirit thus into the Covenant-fellowship which is somewhat strange there being neither there nor elsewhere where the like phrase is used any mention of Covenant or Covenant fellowship and his arguing God hath exalted his word above all his name Psal. 138.2 Ergo baptizing is in the name and Covenant-fellowship of God the Father Son and Spirit is a baculo ad angulum 2. But were his exposition allowed yet what this is to prove that Baptism is a seal of the Covenant Gen. 17. or any other Covenant I am yet to divine Is baptizing all one with sealing is Covenant-fellowship all one with the Covenant 3. Saith he It 's a seal of the remission of sins and therefore of the promise tendering the same hence joyned Act. 2.38 39. Act. 22. But neither is the promise there joyned as a thing sealed by Baptism but as a motive to the duties of Repentance and Baptism nor is the remission of sins mentioned as sealed by Baptism but as a consequent obtained by Repentance and Baptism as conditions pre-required thereto nor is a seal of remission of sins all one with a seal of the Covenant 4. Saith he The
nature of it sheweth the same it being a Gospel Sacrament and that is a visible seal and the seal is to the Covenant hence called by the name Act. 7.8 1 Cor. â—1 25. Answ. 1. The term Sacrament as it is applied to the rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper is no Scripture term nor any other answerable to it in that use it 's a term as I said rightly in my Plea for Antipaedobaptists sect â— invented by the Latine Fathers meaning for that use Mr Craggs reply in his pamphlet termed The arraignment and conviction of Anabaâ—tism that it is used in the twelve tables in Tully pro Milone shews he had a mind to cavil rather then to answer fairly nor is the book throughout any other then a fardle of mistakings in Logick and meaning of Scripture and of cavils against my words mixt with much Poetical lightness and scoffing to which there 's no need I should return any more then the Archangels words The Lord rebuke thee 2. Nor is there any common nature of â—acraments that I know of delivered or intiâ—ated in Scripture either that of the Schoolmen out of Austin that they are visible signs of invisible grace or of the Protestants who are terme Calvinists that they are seals of the Covenant of grace And therefore Mr. C should first prove that to be of the nature of a Gospel Sacrament as the term is used afore he inferred so much as he doth from it 3 A seal it is true is to a Covenant sometimes and sometimes it is to a decree writ letter record of a thing done and so it is taken Rom. 4.11 where Abraham Circumcision is not said to be a seal of the Covenant wherein something further was promised but of the righteousness of faith which he had before attained 4. Act. 7.8 the Covenant of grace is not called by the name of a Gospel Sacrament but the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. is onely termed the covenant of circumcision because it was signified by it which was no Gospel but a Law rite The Cup in the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.25 is termed the New Testament in Christs bloud wherein there seems to be an hypallage and inversion by the words as they are in Matth. ch 26.28 Mar. 14 24. and by considering that of the bread he spake thus this is my body and therefore the words of the cup seem to be most fitly thus placed and expounded this cup that is the wine in it is my bloud that is signifies my bloud which is the bloud of the New Testament that is by which the New Testament is dedicated as the old was by the bloud of calves and goats Heb. 9.18 19 20. Now herein is the notion rather of a Testament then of a Covenant and what is said is said of the cup onely in the Lords Supper not of Baptism Nor is it named the Covenant but the bloud of the New Testament or the New Testament in Christs bloud nor is the term seal there used and therefore there is not a word to prove Baptism to be in its nature a seal of the Covenant of grace in this or any other of the Texts Mr. C. alledgeth I pass over that which he saith secondly Baptism is an initiatory seal as agreeing with him in the position that Baptism is that which is to be first afore the Lords Supper though his phrases be misliked I agree with him also that Baptism being once administred needs never be renewed if done according to Christs institution Yet what I said Exam. par 2. sect 4. seems to me to stand good notwithstanding any thing here said by Mr. C. nor do I think it fit to question whether it be the onely initiatory seal The 6th Section contains nothing but dictates without proof and what is said by way of proof is answered either sect 38. c. in the animadversions on the 3d. ch of the first part of Mr. Cs. book or in answer to Mr. Carter sect 80. In which it is shewed that there is no reference made Gen. 17. to a Church Covenant distinct from the Covenant of grace nor any command given Gen. 17.9 10. to a Gentile believer and his seed nor any general law about an initiatory seal never repealed as Mr. C. and others fain And for his speech he useth that the Hebrew Church albeit quà such a political Church and national c. differ from congregational Churches yet qua visibilis Ecclesia politica ordinaria so it was essentially the same with ours it seems to intimate that the Church of the Hebrews though as such a political Church it was national yet not as a visible Church political and ordinary as if it were any otherwise a visible political ordinary Church then as such a Church And when he saith as a Church visible political ordinary it was essentially the same with ours he can mean it no otherwise then of the same numerical essence for as visible and political the essence is determined to hic nunc an universal generical or specifical Church is not visible and political But that is false sith if the persons be not the same they cannot have the same numerical essence Nor can he mean it that it is essentially the same with ours as visible in the same form of government for then he must make ours Pontificial nor in the same title to Church-membership for then he must make ours national nor can he avoid it if he will maintain this plea that the Jewish Church was essentially the same with ours and as their infants were circumcised as children of Churchmembers in a Church visible political ordinary which was national so ours upon the same reason are to bee baptized but that hee must set up a national Church by natural generation nor can they of N. E justifie their way of excluding such children from the Lords Supper for ignorance if they may for scandal The old objection which Mr. C. falsly terms cavil touching covenant females is not yet answered nor ever will be it will still infringe this universal proposition All that are in Covenant with reference to Church covenant are to have the initiatory seal for a time and so will also that of Jobs family which why it should not be counted a visible political ordinary Church as well as Abrahams house in his time I see not and if none are to be baptized but such as are in an ordinary visible political Church to abide how can they of N. E. baptize the infants of such Church-members as whether in N. E. or old do not abide but are quickly dissolved as we see by experience And if None but those who are in the covenant of grace in reference to Church covenant are to be baptized but though believers because in Rome or India they are not a formed matter of a political visible Church but they are as materia informis they are quoad homines actually without and not within any political
the things promised were performed Now in either of these senses it is easie to conceive how the proâ—ise might be in Christ or unto Christ and yet the Covenant not a pure Gospel-covenant He might be either a Legatee or an Executor in that Testament which contained not onely Evangelical blessings of justification c. which were common to all true Believers but also outward blessings which few or no Believers had in the New Testament I see not any inconvenience in it to say that the Testament was confirmed in Christ in respect of the promises so far as they were Evangelical and yet to say there were promises in the same which were not such nor they 〈◊〉 in Christ though in the same Covenant And whereas he calls outward things appertenances I conceive the promises of outward things Gen. 17.4 5 6 8. are as truely parts of the Covenant as the promise vers 7. Yea in the pâ—â—ces foretold the promise of Canaan hath the title of the covenant And those promises though they alter not the Covenant yet they must needs make a mixture in the covenant for by reason of them the covenant contains promises of diverse sorts And for that which is said That now under the Gospel outward things are promised to Believers I grant it yet it is nothing against the mixture in the covenant Gen. 17. which I assert For those promises are not the pâ—omise of Canaan to be progenitor of Kings which are not made to every Believer but of a different sort Whence I infer that there was a mixture in the covenant Gen. 17. which is not in the New Testament and the reference of circumcision to that covenant might be and was in respect of those domestick promises as well or more then of the Gospel promises as such Nor do I finde Rom. 4.2 3 4. any mention of the covenant Gen 17. much less is it there which Master Drew saith That it is called the covenant of justification and of grace It is true Abraham is there said to be justified by Grace yet no mention of the covenant and the text there cited is Gen. 15.6 not Gen. 17. And though Rom. 4.13 it be said The promise to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the world was not by the law but by the righteousness of saith yet it neither calls the covenant the covenant of faith nor doth it assert that the covenant Gen. 17. contained no other promise but what was Evangelical or common to all Believers of Jews and Gentiles Neither do I nor need I say that Believers stood in a different covenant towards God with that in which Abraham stood I am perswaded as Mr. Drew that Believers now are justified by the same covenant that Abraham was justified by to wit that in Abraham all Nations of the earth should be blessed Gal. 3.8 Rom. 4.13 A father of many Nations have I made thee I onely say that the covenant Gen. 17. contained promises which were proper to the Jews together with the Evangelical promises And to make those promises no parts of the covenant but onely the manner of administring and dispensing the covenant because the Holy Ghost alludes to them as figures and types of spiritual things is not right For even the promise vers 7. was in the like manner typical Abrahams natural seed inheriting shadowing the Israel of God true believers and then by this reason the promise I will be a God to thy seed should be no part of the covenant but belong to the manner of administring and dispensing the Covenant The like may be said of the rest of the promises they all shadowed out spiritual benefits and so there should be no parts of the covenant and consequently no covenant at all but a manner of administring and dispensing of I know not what covenant But the speeches vers 4 5 6 8. do contain promises as well as vers 7. and either I am uncapable to understand the meaning of terms or else promises are parts yea substantial or essential or integral parts of a covenant the description of a covenant being a collective of promises and the Scripture what Gal. 3.15 is called a covenant or testament calls vers 16. promises And therefore ro make the promises Gen. 17.4 5 6 8. not to be parts but appurtenances to the covenant or the manner of administring and dispensing it hath in my apprehension neither truth nor congruous sense Now if they be part of the covenant as hath been made appear and circumcision had its appointment by reason of them as well as the promise vers 7. it matters much to weaken Master Drew's proposition and argument though there be no difference in those Evangelical promises which make it a covenant of grace between Abrahams covenant and ours Master Drew proceeds SECT V. Acts 2.38 39. Proves not either the identity of Covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as it comprehends his natural seed nor the connexion between it and Baptizability NOw to go on to the proof of our second proposition in the argument which is that the reason of the command for signing c. even this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed continues in full force under the Gospel I refer you to that Scripture Acts 2.39 to make it good The promise is unto you and to your children What promise Why this must needs relate to a former engagement yea and too made unto them to whom the Apostle Peter spake viz. Jews and I know not to what engagement this can have reference if not unto Gods promise made to Abraham of being his God and the God of his seed after him Certainly he is one of those that are blinde and yet have eyes who sees not from this text that this very promise is in force and appliable to Believers under the Gospel and if this stand good then the command for signing our Infants with the first signe of the covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good too for this promise is the reason which God gives of his precept God will own a Believers children therefore he will have them markt for his Answ. I grant the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed doth still continue in force God is still the God of Abrahams seed that is his spiritual seed elect persons and true Believers and he will be again the God of Abrahams natural seed when the natural branches or posterity of Abraham the root shall be grafted in again But I deny that which Master Drew means and in the page before expressed that God doth as truely say to every believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the father of the faithful yea or that ever God meant by that promise to assure Spiritual or Evangelical blessings to all and every of Abrahams natural posterity the Apostle determining and proving the contrary Rom. 9 6 7 8
this Review in the ten first Sections that I think it unnecessary to say any more to what Master Drew here speaks And for what he saith If believers Infants were taken in under the legal administration and left out in the Gospel-administration the covenant dispensation under the Gospel is more uncomfortable thâ—n that under the Law it is but a vain speech as if the circumcision of Infants were such a matter of comfort that the having of no priveledge under the Gospel did recompense the loss of it without Infant-baptism as if Infant-baptism were of so great comfort to parents that without it other comfort concerning their children were nullified whereas these things arise upon mistakes as if Baptism were administred according to a persons interest in the covenant and circumcision was so and that the denying Infants Baptism is putting them out of Covenant which is but ungrounded talk as shall be further shewed in that which follows Yea when the Paedobaptists answer the Papists who would have the work of outward Baptism to take away original sin from the Infant-baptized they say onely that it seals the covenant but doth not seal the fruit of the covenant but upon condition of Faith and Repentance so that the Infant hath no benefit by the covenant or the seal without Faith or Election and so much benefit hath any unbeliever or his Infant yea the unbeliever hath more advantage then the Infant for the unbeliever hath the moral use of the sealing of any baptized person which the Infant hath not When they talk of the covenant to Infants of believers they say it is but condicionally that they do believe that God will be their God and in the same manner the covenant belongs to all men in the world to unbelievers and their Infants and when they speak of the benefit of Baptism they say it onely seals the covenant not the persons partaking the fruit of it excepting he be an elect person dying in Infancy which yet he may have without the seal till he believe yet he hath not the moral use and comfort of it till he understand and believe at which time the Baptism in Infancy is altogether unknown to him So that indeed the comfort which Paedobaptists give to parents is either the same I give without Infant-baptism or if parents did examin it it would be found delusory What Master Drew speaks about Baptisms succession to circumsion and his imagined full proof from thence for Infant-baptism I shall put off till I review the Dispute about Master Ms. third Concl. This is enough to satisfie that Master Drew's reasons are blunt and not sharp as was supposed SECT VI. The Arguments of Master Josias Church in his Divine warrant for Infant-baptism from their being judged in the promise is answered THere is another writing of Master Josiah Church intituled The Divine warrant of Infant-baptism of which I passed a censure in the first part of this Review Sect. 21. and I might let it pass being as the commanders of it say Dogmatical rather then Polemical and leave it to those that affect such superficial writings Yet because Master Roberts and Master Geree have commended it and Master Baxter pag. 6. of his Plain Scripture proof puts it among the chief books of which he saith If any of the men of Bewdly have taken up the union of Antipaedobaptism and have not read and studied him with others and been able to confute them he hath discovered a seared conscience which is a most unreasonable and uncharitable censure to shew the folly and vanity of Master Baxters and others conceit I shall give the Reader some taste of his overly handling the point His first Argument is thus The Infants of Christians are righty judged in the promise of propriety in God therefore they may be Baptized To it I answer 1. The antecedent is ambiguous not expressing what propriety in God he means whether of justification regeneration and salvation or of outward protection prosperity among men or Ecclesiastical privilege nor where that promise is which he calls promise of propriety in God nor whether he means it of all Infants of Christians or some and if of some of which he means it and of which not nor of what sort of Christians whether such as are Christians onely by profession or really such in Gods account nor with what judgement he means whether of charity or verity probably or certainty nor upon what evidence they are with any of these sorts of judgement rightly judged in the promise of propriety in God So that I finde nothing but Sophistry in this dispensation the antecedent being perhaps true in some sense in some false and therefore it is but wast labour to refute it or answer his proofs till that he distinctly set down what he asserts and how his proofs suite with his assertion Yet I shall cast away some animadversions on this writing least my silence be disadvantage to the cause I maintain That which I conceive he means is this All the Infants of Christians by visible profession are rightly judged by a judgement of charity though not of certainty to be included in the promise of propriety in God in regard of eternal adoption and priviledge expressed in those words Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed therefore they may be Baptized Of which Argument I deny both the antecedent and the consequence The antecedent he takes upon him to prove by ten Arguments 1. The Infants of the Jews so long as they continued visible professors were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God for it was sealed to them by the initial Sacrament no less then to actual professors Gen. 17.7 12. Ergo Answ. Did not Master Church affect new phrasifying which serves onely to puzzle in plain words he had said To the Jews Infants· the promise was made of being God to them therefore the Infants of Christians are rightly to be in that promise Of which neither is the antecedent true universally taken but contradicted by Paul Rom. 9.7 8. where he expresly denies the promise I will be the God of thy seed to be true of Abrahams natural seed universally taken Nor if it had been true doth it follow that what was promised to Abrahams seed is true of every true Believers muchless of the seed of every meer visible professor of Christian faith who are neithet themselves nor their children in any Scripture sense Abrahams seed nor is the proof of any weight That the promise of propriety in God was sealed to the Jews Infants by the initial Sacrament no less then to actual professors therefore the Jews Infant were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God For this reason in plain terms is no more then this the Jews Infants were to be circumcised Ergo they were rightly judged to be in the promise of propriety in God that is that God would be their God which rests upon
prohibition in forbidding terms or a prohibition by consequence It is granted in so many express words infants are not prohibited to receive baptism no nor the Lords Supper yet they are by good consequence to be denied both in as much as both are disagreeing from the institution and practice of those rites in the new Testament Wherefore to the Doctors argument I except against the form of it as containing more then three terms the predicate in the conclusion not being in the Major part of the medium in the major being left out in the Minor And if it be thus formed all they who are comprized within the covenant of faith and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to be baptized But infants of believers are comprized c. Ergo. I deny the Major if meant of Gods covenant to us or promise either of faith or righteousness to infants by it as the alleging Gen. 17.7 imports the Doctor meant But grant it of those who are comprized within the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers in which sense I deny the Minor that children that is infant-children are comprized in the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers yea and if the proposition be universal all children or all infant-children of believers are comprized in Gods covenant of faith or promise that he will give them faith or righteousness by faith I deny it Nor is the Major proved by the Doctor For it is no unjust thing to deny baptism to a person to whom it is not appointed now baptism is appointed to disciples or believers not to whom God promiseth to give faith or righteousness by faith Besides were it true that God had so promised it and confirmation of it were due yet without institution confirmation by baptism were not due God hath other waies to confirm it as by his Oath Heb. 6.17 the blood of his Son 1 Cor. 11.25 his Spirit 2 Cor. 1.22 A man that is bound to pass an estate and to seal it may not be bound to a further Confirmation by fine and recovery Besides its no injustice not to confirm ones right who doth not claim and prove it But this infants do not And for the Minor the words Gen. 17 7. have nothing about the second part of the proposition nor do indeed prove any to be comprized in that promise but Abraham and his seed of which sort none of Gentile-believers children are but those that are true believers as he was or elect by God to adoption of children The objection the Doctor brings in is not rightly framed nor do I deny the answer the Doctor gives is sufficient to overthrow it as so formed But what the Doctor dictates That all true believers and their children are to be reckoned among children of the promise is contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9.7 8. as the Apostle is expounded by Dr. Featly himself in the New Annot. on Rom. 9.8 in which he thus speaks not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the children of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods special grace were adopted as Isaac by a special and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for that seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed SECT XIII The Arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant-baptism are examined MR. William Lyford in his Apology for Infant-baptism page 33. thus disputes All that are taken into the Covenant of grace ought to receive the initial sign what ever the sign be that God shall chuse and that according to the commandment of God and our Lord Jesus Christ. But infants are taken into Covenant with their parents as is proved therefore by the Commandment of the Lord they ought to receive the sign which God hath enjoined to be used and that sign is baptism To which I answer by denying the Major and for his proof out of Gen. 17.7 12. I deny 1. That there is any command for any other initial sign but Circumcision 2. That circumcision is there appointed to all who are taken into the Covenant of grace not to Lot Melchisedeck Job or their children not to the females of Abrahams house not to the males under eight daies old not to the Proselytes of the gate as Cornelius was 3. That the adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was interest in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 but the command only For both Ishmael who was not in the covenant was to be circumcised because of the command and as hath been shewed others in the covenant were not to be circumcised through defect of the command Nor is the Minor true if understood of all the infants of believers or any of them as their infants nor is there a word to prove it Gen. 17.7 which is onely a promise to Abrahams seed and they of the Gentiles are only true believers or elect persons But perhaps Mr. Lyford mends the matter in the next form which is this pag. 34. If infants have a right to the covenant and the initial sign therof then it is a wrong to deny it to them But infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial sign thereof both by Gods original grant Gen. 17.11.14 and by Christs confirmation of that Covenant made to their Fathers Rom. 15 8. therefore it is a wrong to deny it them The Covenant under which we are is the Gospel Covenant made long since with us Englishmen and our infant-seed with a command of giving them the sign which at first was circumcision and now baptism by the same Divine authority enjoined and commanded to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant I answer by denying the Minor and to the proof by denying that Gen. 17.11 14. there is command of any other initial sign than Circumcision or that circumcision is commanded to all that had a right to the Covenant or that the Gospel Covenant was made long since with us Englishmen and our seed as our seed or that there was in that of circumcision any command to us to baptize infants or that Divine authority hath commanded baptism to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant But I affirm he hath commanded only to baptize those in the Covenant who are disciples or believers But Mr. Lyford adds further p. 37. All those to whom the blessings and promises in the Covenant do belong t them also belongs baptism the sign thereof by the doctrine of St. Peter and of Jesus Christ himself But to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong before actual faith therefore by the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost in Scripture such infants ought to be baptized before actual faith The Major or first
part of this Argument is the very reason of the Text. The Minor proposition viz. that the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to infants before actual faith is proved by these reasons 1. By the express words of Peter which say the promise is to your children 2. By the express words of our Saviour of such is the Kingdom of Heaven 3. By example of Isaac and Jacob they were children of the promise before actuall faith and had applied unto them the seal of the righteousness of faith 4. Some infants dying are saved they are members of Christs Kingdom therefore the blessing of the covenant viz. regeneration and remission of sins through the blood of Christ do also belong to them To which I answer blessings of the covenant are of sundry sorts such as certainly accompanie salvation regeneration justification adoption or such as are common to reprobates as to have teachers example and acquaintance with the godly c. Both these may belong to them in present possession or assurance for the future when they belong to them in present possession it is either discernibly or indiscernibly Actual faith may be in the exercise or habit Infants of believers are elect or non-elect It is true all those to whom the blessings of the Covenant which accompany salvation belong in present possession discernibly to them also belongs baptism but so the Minor is false understood of all infants of believers they belong not to all but only to the elect nor them certainly in present possession much less discernibly during infancy or if it be discernible then they have actual faith and so the Minor is not true that to infants of believing parents the saving blessings of the covenant do belong in possession discernibly before actual faith If it be meant of the blessings of the Covenant in future assurance only the Major is false Nor is it true that the Major is the very reason of the text Act. 2.38 39. It is false that this is Peters reasoning therefore does the sign belong to Peters hearers because the promise did first belong to them For the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for does not infer a right which they might claim but imports a motive to duties and of these duties first to repentance and then baptism so that if from thence a right be concluded they must conclude as well a right to repentance in the first place and then to baptism Nor is it true that Acts 10.47 48. the Apostles discourse is reduced to M. Lyfords form of argument or saies as he saies They that receive the same grace are capable yea have right to the same sign but infants are capable of the same grace therefore of right they are to have the same sign i. e. the Sacrament of baptism For although the Major be granted of actual possession of the spirit and magnifying God yet it is not true only of the promise thereof But the Minor infants are capable of the same grace alters the term which is in the Major thus they have received the same grace and so Mr. Lyford syllogism hath four terms Nor doth the Apostle say they that are capable of the same grace are to be baptized as well as we but none can forbid water to baptize them that had received the Holy Ghost and so were manifestly actual believers as well as themselves though they were of the Gentiles which when it appears in infants I should yield they are to be baptized but not meerly because of the promise or capacity of grace for the promise agrees to Jews children elect and capacity of grace to Turks children and therfore if either or both these did intitle to baptism the infant-children of such might be baptized And for his proofs of the Minor it is false that to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the covenant do belong before actual faith is proved by the express words of Peter For though he say the promise is to your children yet he doth not say to you as believers or to your children in infancy as the children of believers nor before actual faith Yea the words as many as the Lord our God shall call do require actual faith afore the possession of the blessings of the promise Nor is this any miserable shift nor is it true that those words are quite a new thing clearly relating to another sort of people than his present hearers and not to them for that expression limits all the Subjects and is put after all joined by copulative particles and therefore is to be conceived to limit all of them Nor is the speech true of any of them without that limitation Nor is it true which Mr. Lyford saies That the words do not exegetically expound to which of his hearers children the promise did belong For they are a manifest limitation excluding some and including others And what he saith that Peter saies this promise does belong to them that are afar off and their children as well as to you and your children is manifestly false But of this text I have spoken in the first part of this Review sect 5. more fully To his second proof I say it is false that the express words of our Saviour of such is the Kingdome of Heaven prove his Minor For of such is not all one with infants of believing parents nor when it is said of such is the Kingdome of heaven is it all one with this the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong to them afore actual faith the Kingdom of heaven is not said to be of them because their parents were believers its uncertain whether they were so or no and if they were another reason may and ought to be conceived of their interest in the Kingdome of heaven to wit Christs special and effectual blessing nor is it said the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them in actual possession and if it were so meant and yet they were not appointed to be baptized as it appears by the Evangelists they were not it is a good presumption Christ would not have infants notwithstanding their interest in the Kingdom of heaven to be baptized till they became believers by profession and knew what their engagement is thâ—â—eby To his third it is true Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise before actual faith yea before they were born and therefore if the interest in the Covenant had been a sufficient reason of Circumcision they should have been circumcised afore the eighth day which because they were not it is an argument that not the Covenant but the Command intitled them to Circumcision To the fourth I never denied that to some infants the covenant belongs nor that they are saved regenerated in infancy but I deny that this is true of all infants of believers For the very instances brought prove the contrary that though Isaac and Jacob were children of the promise yet Ishmael and Esau begotten by believing parents were
of actual circumcision to infants whereas by their own confession it onely proves necessarily a virtual and if so how can it prove necessarily by their own principles any more than a virtual baptizing of infants The same medium that doth not prove as necessary actual circumcision in the one cannot prove as necessary actual baptism in the other Now the force of this objection is not at all weakned by his reply For my words were not concerning the fitness of the expression that the one was as fit as the other but that I might grant a virtual baptism to infants without detriment to my cause if they assert no more from the covenant but a virtual circumcision But had I said you may as well say which yet I find not in my writings but we might grant we may say Examen page 37. by like perhaps greater reason it may be said Exercit. p. 4. the speech might have been right notwithstanding Mr. Gerees exceptions for there is no more proof for the use of this speech that females may be said to be virtually circumcised in the males then for this infants may be said to be virtually baptized in their parents neither being used in Scripture and reason being as much for the one as the other And though those that were infants when grown being believers are to be baptized yet infants during their infancy are by more full evidence excluded from actual baptism then females were from actual circumcision Mr. G. proceeds thus For your second instance of infants dying afore they were eight daies old I answer that they were particularly tyed to that day whether for the Theological reason Levit. 12.2 3. or for the Physical reason that God would not suffer an incision to be made on the flesh of a tender infant or till the seventh that is the Critical day was over or whether to typifie the resurrection we cannot determine but till that day they were expresly excluded yet therefore it remains clear that all that were within that administration of the Covenant that were not expresly excluded were circumcised which is enough for my purpose And so unless you can bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till 18 years or so that instance of infants not being circumcised dying before the 8. day is too short to reach up Answ. It is not enough for Mr. Gs. purpose which was to prove the seal did follow the covenant and when any were aggregated into the Jewish church and taken into the communion of the covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision unless he can prove that all that were in covenant and in the Jewish Church were circumcised But his own grant That some in the Covenant and Jewish Church as females and males under eight daies old were expresly excluded overthrows his own position and is enough for my purpose to prove that all in the covenant were not circumcised The reason why males afore the eighth day were not circumcised whatever it were is nothing for Mr. Gs. advantage but against him sith it doth more fully shew that God would not have them circumcised Nor need I bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till eighteen years or so which goes upon his mistake as if the instance I gave were as a proof of the time of baptism it being brought only to shew a reason of my denial of his assertion that the seal did follow the covenant It is enough for me that I prove as I have done in the second part of the Review s. 5. c. that the rule is that persons are not to be baptized till they be disciples or believers and that infants are not such Mr. G. addes Your third instances are of Adam Abel Noah page 36. of your answer and Melchisedec Lot Job pag. 4. Exercit. I answer either those were before the administration begun with Abraham and so before the institution of seals or such of them that were with or after him either they join not themselves to that administration and so were not to be sealed no more then the Proselytes of the Gate or if they did unite to the Church in Abrahams family then it is apparent they might lay claim to circumcision as other proselytes did And so indeed it is averred of Iob that he was circumcised by the Author of the book of true circumcision which is ascrrbed to Hierom cited by Iunius in his animadversion on Bellarmine Controv. 4. l. 3. cap. 16. Not. 13. Answ. Master Geree doth make shew of answering my allegation but doth indeed confirm my proof that sith Abel Noah Melchisedec Lot and many Proselytes of the gate were in the Covenant of grace yet had not any initial sign or seal as M. Geree calls it to seal the Covenant and some sealed after an initial seal was instituted though in the Covenant of grace therefore there is not such a connexion between the Covenant and the initial seal that therefore a man must have the seal initial because he is in the covenant of grace and that it was not from interest in the Covenant of grace that persons were circumcised but Gods special command upon such reasons as seemed best to him but is not a reason for us to imitate in another ordinance without the like command If one Author conceive Iob was circumcised many do conceive otherwise and there are more probable reasons he was not sith there 's no mention of his circumcision or his observing any of the rites of the Law or of any acquaintance he had with Israel or any thing else that might induce us to believe he had communion with the policy of Israel Master Geree saith further And wheras you say Lastly that the Jews comprehended in covenant and circumcised could not be baptized without faith and repentance I answer the reason is evident because baptism was a seal of a new administration and therefore they must join to that administration of the covenant as well as be in covenant before they could be baptized Answ. I am beholding to Mr. Geree who as before had given the reason why Melchisedeck Lot Iob were not circumcised though in Covenant because of their not joining themselves to that administration or their not uniting to the Church in Abrahams family so here again he doth not only grant what I allege but gives a reason of it also and such as quite overthrows his dispute For if it were true that the Jews that were in covenant were not to be â—aptizâ—d without faith and repentance then being in covenant is not a sufficient reason of an infants being baptized without faith and repentance and if baptism were a seal of a new administration then it must have a new rule and so the old rule of circumcision is no direction to us about baptism if Lot the Proselytes of the gate though in
covenant were not to be circumcised without joining to that administration or the Church in Abrahams family then right to circumcision was not from interest in the covenant common to all believers but something proper to that Church-state or administration which is now voided if therefore the Jews in covenant and circumcised must profess repentance and faith afore they were baptized because they must join to the new administration of the covenant then according to Mr. Gerees own confession according to the new administration of the Covenant faith and repentance are required of them that join to that administration of the Covenant And therefore whereas Mr. Geree addes we may therefore conclude that those that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it have right to the seal of initiation under that administration unless they be particularly excluded by God himself and so the major is firmly proved I may truly say it is firmly proved that they that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it yet have not right to the seal of initiation under that administration barely from the Covenant without a command and that God himself hath excluded infants from baptism by Mr. Gerees own concession without faith and repentance and that in all this arguing Mr. G. hath dictated much and proved nothing Let 's see whether he speed better about proving the Minor SECT XVI That the Gospel-Covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such NOw the Minor saith he that children are under the Gospel-Covenant in the Christian administration of it that we prove by the Scriptures mentioned as first Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee To comprehend the meaning of this place we are to consider What the privilege is that is here promised 2. what the extent of it is First for the privilege it self as Calvin hath well observed by vertue of this promise the Church was settled in Abrahams family and it was separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness And the people of Israel Abrahams posterity was the house and sheepfold of God And other nations like wild beasts ranging about without in the wilderness of the World And by this privilege the dignity of adoption-belonged to all the Israelites in common Rom. 9.4 To whom pertaineth the adoption And so though by nature they were no better than others yet by reason of this promise they had a birth-privilege whereby they were separated from others which is apparently held forth Gal. 2.15 We who are Jews by nature not sinners of the Gentiles as Mr. Blake hath truly observed And sith you grant the Jews a birth-privilege as p. 106. and p. 78. of your Answer you needed not have quarrelled with this plain proof But now among those that had this outward privilege of common adoption to be reputed children when the Gentiles were reputed as Dogs Matth. 15.26 there were some that were separated by the secret election of God and really made partakers of sanctifying and saving grace and so not only adopted outwardly and reputatively but also really in comparison of whom the other Israelites are sometimes spoken of as no sons of Abraham Rom. 9.6 7. Though externally they were the children of the Kingdom and in reference to the Gentiles they are so stiled Matthew 8.11 12. So then the privilege is that he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privileges of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Answ. It is true I granted page 78. of my Examen that the Jews had a birth-privilege yet denyed it to be from the Covenant of grace according to the substance of it as Mr. M. speaks but that special love God bare to Abrahams posterity Nor do I deny that the people of Israel till broken off were in common estimation Gods children children of the Kingdom nor Dogs nor unclean as the Gentiles and that these titles did belong to all by external denomination really to the elect Nor do I much gainsay that by vertue of the promise I will be a God to the seed of Abraham the Church was settled in Abrahams family though it doth not appear to me that the Apostle did so expound this promise but expresly contradistinguisheth the children of the promise to the children of the flesh Rom. 9.8 And his doctrine there is plain that the elect are they only to whom the promise I will be the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 was made yea Exercit. page 2 3. I expound the promise as in respect of some peculiar blessings belonging to Abrahams natural seed Nor did I quarrel with Mr. Blake for proving from Gal. 2 15. a birth-privilege belonging to the Jews but excepted against him for that he contended to have the seed of believing Gentile-parents under the Gospel to be under the first member of the division in the text to wit Jews by nature which exception I have made good in my Postscript to my Apology S. 9. which I intend to vindicate from Master Blakes Reply Vindic. foed cha 35. in that which followes But then what doth this advantage to prove Mr. Gs. Minor To children meaning all or else his conclusion can be but particular of believing Christians the Gospel-covenant is extended in the Christian Churches Is this the Gospel-covenant to make a people only reputatively and outwardly but not really adopted Is this that which circumcision did seal Is this the covenant of grace which the seal is to follow What kind of juggling is there with these men They contend the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be the same with the Covenant of grace for substance and that they make to consist in saving graces the temporal benefits they refer to the administration that then was they will not have it called a mixt covenant and this covenant of grace they will have to be sealed by circumcision out of Rom. 4.11 and they say this was made to believers and their seed and thence they have salvation if they die in infancy and without this there is no ground of hope of the salvation of any infant deceased and they argue they are to have the seal because they are in covenant which if they understand not of that covenant of which that ordinance is the seal what colour is there to derive thence a title unto that seal on them who have interest in another covenant which it doth not seal Their argument is He hath right to the Conveyance who hath right to the Land but these men who dare not assert that the covenant of saving grace belongs to all believers natural children yet will have them all to have right to baptism which seals saving graces though perhaps a very few and those all unknown persons have right to that Covenant onely because a promise of
the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself But all the infants of believing parents are in covenant and they are capable of the seal and there is no special bar put in against them by God himself Ergo They should be sealed Or thus All who since Abrahams time are foederati or Covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant unless they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation All infants of believers since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God neither uncapable of the seal nor exempted by a particular dispensation Ergo all infants of believers since Abrahams time must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant To which I answer Mr. M. tells me I must needs state thus the general Proposition But it is a pretty art he hath as elsewhere to call that my Minor which was his own not mine so here to say I must needs state the general Proposition thus which is of his own framing However he is not wronged that it is thus framed Let us then view it and try whether except in that of circumcision there be any truth sense or consideratenesse in it As for circumcision if it be meant onely of it then the Conclusion can be of it only and as the truth is his argument concludes only that infants of believers are to be circumcised 1. I had in my Examen noted a fault in his Argument in his Sermon in that his Conclusion was of a sign of the Covenant indefinite and not of baptism only whereas the Lords Supper is also a sign of the Covenant which he would not have delivered to infants And to it he answers That he clearly in his Sermon shewed this Proposition to be only meant of the initial sign and not of the other But this doth not excuse his fault who taking upon him to prove infant-baptism concludes another thing in the argument though he might perhaps some pages of where the Reader looks not for an explication of his argument limit his speech to the initial seal And for what he tells me he is sure that I who durst baptize an infant known to me to be regenerate durst not give the other Sacrament to it there being self examination and ability to discern the Lords body prerequired to the one not to the other I told him in my Apology s. 10. I durst do the one as I durst do the other and that self examination and ability to discern the Lords body is as well required to baptism as the Lords Supper Acts 2.38 8.37 Rom. 6.3 4. But were it that I durst not do the one as the other yet this would not help Mr. M. who would prove the title to the initial seal by that proof of interest in the Covenant which will conclude as well title to the after as the initial seal For the proof is usually the seal must follow the covenant which if true then not only the initial but also the after-seal must follow it But waving this is the fault mended in his Defence doth he conclude definitely of baptism here nay notwithstanding he was warned yet chorda semper oberrat eadem he still runs into the same fault concluding in both forms of an initial seal indefinitely not definitely of baptism and therefore may be interpreted to conclude of circumcision as well as of baptism yea rather his assertion if there be any good sense of it is of the circumcising then baptizing of infants sith all his proof is about the initial sign of circumcision and the limitations he puts into the Major are that it may be true of circumcision But this is not all the fault in his new forms notwithstanding I complained in my Examen sect 3. of his ambiguities which I shewed in my Apology s. 9 10. and Postscript s. 6. yet as if either he could not or would not speak distinctly he retains the same fault in his Defence Whereas I conceive the covenant of grace now contains only the promise of saving grace he saith p 90. The Covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church privileges but shews not where nor in which covenant of grace there are promises of the administration of saving grace in outward ordinances and Church privileges It is true circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.13 by a Metonymia as Mr. M. confesseth page 32 but not because it was contained in the Covenant it is not Metonymia continentis pro contento but signati pro signo now that the sign should be said to be contained in the covenant is scarse good sense sure it is not meet to be used in disputes And therefore whoever useth the covenant of grace for any other than the covenant of saving grace or saith it contains any other than promises of saving grace seems to affect ambiguities unmeet for dispute as not willing to be understood Again page 92. he expresseth the covenant of grace he means to be that Gen. 17.7 and he cannot but know it to have diverse meanings one that God will be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed which he confesseth pag. 102. to be the elect when he saith Secondly by the word seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9.8 and in this sense it is denyed by him that God hath made a promise of saving grace to the natural seed of believers and so they are not in this covenant in this sense Yet the Directory when it speaks of baptism as the seal of the covenant means it in this sense as the words before recited shew for what else can be meant when they distinguish between interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and the ouâ—ward privileges of the Church under the Gospel And Rom. 4.11 is alleged in the Confession of Faith for the proof of this that it is the seal of the Covenant of grace now that text speaks of being a seal of the righteousness of faith which is a saving grace and in the Confession of faith ch 7. art 3. and in the greater Catechism they make the Covenant of grace to offer life and salvation by Christ to promise faith and to be made with Christ and in him with all the elect as his seed and so the Argument from the Covenant of grace to the Seal must mean it thus or else it is frivolous For if the Seal must follow the Covenant it must follow the Covenant which is sealed by it which is only the promise of saving grace there being no shew of consequence in it infants of believers have not the covenant of saving grace but of outward Ordinances and Church privileges therefore they are to be sealed with that seal which seals only saving graces And yet methinks they should not have avouched as the Directory doth that the posterity
flirts rather than sober and serlous answers yet remaining To what I said that Abraham was engaged to circumcise only those that are males and not afore eight daies and not onely those that were from himself but also all in his house whose children soever they were which apparently shews that the giving circumcision was not commensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant but it was to be given to persons as well out of Covenant as in if of Abrahams house and not to all that were in the Covenant to wit females which doth cleerly prove that right to the initial seal as it is called of circumcision did not belong to persons by vertue of the Covenant but by force of the command Mr. Blake in his flirting fashion thus speaks If he can prove that Abraham kept Idolaters in his house professedly worshipping a false God and gave Circumcision to them in that faith and way of worship it would prove that a man might have the seal and not be in Covenant And it will prove a man might have the seal and not be in covenant though I cannot prove any Idolater in Abrahams house if I can prove there were or might be infants or young persons who were children of Idolaters for such were not in covenant as the seed of believers or by their own profession But saith he it would not prove that he might be in covenant and be denied the seal True but this that infant-males under eight daies old and females in covenant might be denyed the seal would prove it And then saith Mr. Bl. infant-baptism might be of easier proof Though they were not in Covenant though they were not holy yet they might be baptized I reply I grant that persons in Covenant might be denyed Circumcision but think infant-baptism never a whit the easier proved I ft-circumcision is commanded of all in Abrahams house whether in covenant or no but baptism to none because he is in covenant or holy but because a disciple which is not true of any infant ordinarily But saith Master Blake I will not yield so much I do not believe that Abraham carried circumcision beyond the line of the Covenant and that he had those in his house which were aliens from God seeing I find that testimony of the Lord concerning him Genesis chap. 18. verse 19. and find that resolution of Joshua Joshua chap. 24. verse 14 15. I believe Abraham catechized all he took in as Heathens and did not circumcise them as Heathens Answ. I believe he did not circumcise them as Heathens but as his own bought with his money and of his house and if he bought any infants or young children which was then and hath been since usual where men and women are sold as slaves he did circumcise infant or young males of heathen Idolaters For the command of God was he should and yet those infant or young males of heathen Idolaters could not be catechized nor were in Covenant either by their own profession or their parents right or any promise of God to them and therefore circumcision in that case must be carried beyond the line of the Covenant To what I added of Master Marshalls Confession That he granted the formal reason of the Jews being circumcised was the command and the covenant he makes only a motive Defence page 182. Master Blake speaks thus I wonder what need there is of an argument to force such a Confession The reason I say why Jews were circumcised and Christians baptized is the command were there a thousand Covenants and no institution of a sign or seal such a sign or seal there could have been no circumcision no baptism The command is the ground and the Covenant is the Directory to whom application is to be made we say all in Covenant are entituled to the seal for admission but we presuppose an institution I reply If the formal reason why the Jews were circumcised were the Command and the Covenant onely the motive then the command was the differencing reason for the form distinguisheth and the formal reason is the reason which differenceth Motives are not directions what to do but commands the same motive may be to contrary commands The Command is the Directory to whom application is to be made both of circumcision and baptism The command doth express not only the act to be done but also the persons to whom The Covenant is no Directory to whom circumcision or baptism is to be applyed The whole Covenant of Circumcision is expressed Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. But there is not a word who are to be circumcised but after There is not the least hint in the institution of baptism Matthew chap. 28. verse 19. Mark chap. 16. verse 15. of any Covenant God makes to man To imagine God commanded circumcision and baptism and yet not to tell who are to be baptized or circumcised but from the Covenant which no man knoweth to whom it belongs is to imagine God gives a blind command which no wise Master would do It is not true all in covenant are entitled to the seal for admission for then females males under eight daies old believers out of Abrahams house Proselytes of the gate had been entitled to Circumcision for they were in Covenant as well as those who were to be circumcised And it is as certain on the other side that Ishmael Esau the infants of strangers bought by Abraham with his money were to be circumcised though they were not in Covenant and therefore I inferre it as certain that being in covenant or interest in the covenant or having the promises of the Covenant Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. or the new Covenant in Christs blood Heb. 8.10 11 12. and 10.16 17. or any other Evangelical Covenant all or some of them made to a person did not intitle a person to circumcision nor doth now to baptism nor can be without the command or institution of Christ or primitive example a rule Directory or sufficient warrant for any to baptize a person nor acquit him from profaning and abusing baptism and therefore there is no such reality of connexion between the Covenant and seal that this proposition is thereby proved true All in Covenant are intitled to the seal for admission or this false some of those who are not in covenant are intitled to the seal as they call it for admission and Master Blakes censure of my exceptions as frivolous trifles shews his weaknesse in disputes there being very little in his arguings or answers but flirts quips dictates and impertinencies What he addes of my grants discovers the like vanity For though I say that believers and disciples are to be baptized not barely on their faith and knowledge but upon the Command to baptize such yet how it follows which Mr. Blake saith so that the command is with reference to the Covenant with reference to the interest in the Covenant is to me a meer inconsequence unless he imagine the command and Covenant
it Is any man the wiser for a meer Negative It is saith he a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it But this tells us not what sort of distinction this is whether nominis of the word or rei of the thing If he had meant to be a distinction of the word he should have shewed where the word is so taken if of the thing what kinde of division or distribution it is To me it seems against all Rules of Logick to divide thus A covenant is either the outward or the inward administration and dispensation of it or the inward which without Trope of speech which should be absent from men that should rationally explain things is non-sense affirming one covenant to be one administration and another another whereas the covenant is one thing and the administration another thing But his meaning is this one covenant is outward being outwardly administred or administring outward things another inward administring inwardly or inward things But neither is this right sith the covenant doth not administer but the covenanter nor doth he do it by the covenant but by some other act according to the covenant the covenant is onely an agâ—eement and promise to do it the administring is the keeping of the covenant not the covenant it self But let that be yielded that the covenant doth administer yet the description of the external covenant as made by Mr. Burges doth not include administration For God may in an outward visible manner own a people and they externally profess their owning of him and yet neither administer one to another any thing promised or if the owning be administration the people administer to God as well as God administers to them Besides his description makes an external profession of owning God requisite to the external covenant If that be right no infant is in the external covenant till it profess owning God and in what outward visible manner God doth own infants except by baptizing them which God doth not but the Minister nor ever commanded or declared his approbation of iâ— I know not and then the outward covenant is nothing else but baptizing and an infants being in covenant is his being baptized or to be baptized and the argument from the covenant comes to this ridiculous tautology all infants of believers are in the outward covenant for they dare not say they are all in the inward that is they are in the outward administration which is no other than baptism and so the antecedent is equipollent to this they are or are to be baptized and the conclusion is ergo they are to be baptized But Mr. Marshal it seems conceives the outward Covenant as he describes it meant Zach. 11.10 where the Prophet saith And I took my staff even Beauty and cut it asunder that I might break my Covenant which I had made with all the people And he interprets it thus that at the death of Christ God brake his covenant with the Jews wholly evacuating and abolishing the legal Ordinances and bringing in the administration we live under But if this be the sense then this Prophesie doth not foretell any thing penal to the Jews for the abolishing of legal ordinances was a mercy to them they being a yoke intolerable Acts 15.10 whereas the Text speaks of it as an evil that should befall them Piscator in his Analysis Eventus fuit desertio Judaeorum v. 9 10 11 14. Diodati and after him the New Annotations in Zech. 11.10 My Covenant the peace which I had granted to my Church that she should not be assaulted no more nor be molested by any strange Nation which was verified from the Maccabees time untill a little before the coming of Christ. Grot. Annot. in locum Abstuli protectionem illam specialem Irritum facere foedus suum Deus dicitur cum ruptis a populo foederis conditionibus ipse quoque a sua parâ—e promissa non implet Mr. Ms. conceit is as if by the Covenant were meant legal Ordinances and so the breaking off is meant either de jure onely and then it is not a Prophesie of what should happen or else de facto in the event but then it is not true for the Jews retained the legal Ordinances of the Covenant he made with them and do still at this day even circumcision and as many other of the legal Rites as they can in their present dispersion It is true God brake oâ— the Jews from being his people in Covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum and how this is to be understood I have shewed before at large in the first part of this Review But without a Trope to call outward Ordinances Gods Covenant is without example of Scripture the Covenants Rom. 9.4 say Beza Piscator New Annot. c. are the Tables of the Covenant and can hardly be acquitted from non-sense Onely perhaps it seems Mr. M. for a shift as v. g. pag. 103. he saith God makes good his promise sealed in baptism in which he engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians and their seed which in his Sermon pag. 10. he makes the promise of saving grace yet when it is proved that cannot be true of Gentile believers and their children he runs to this vain shift that the outward Covenant belongs to them which is nothing to the promise Gen. 17.7 in which outward administrations are not promised though not the inward Nor is it Mr. Ms. manner alone but the common course of Paedobaptists in their writings to play fast and loose with the ambiguity of the term Covenant and Covenant of grace as hath been formerly shewed and may appear more in that which follows But to keep to Mr. M. He tells me If the Covenant of grace be in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose To which I reply Though I grant the Covenant of grace be always the same in substance meaning thereby that the elect are saved in all Ages by the same promises of evangelical grace that is righteousness regeneration adoption in Christ and the promise Gen. 17.7 hath an evangelical sense which is this that God will be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed by election and faith and am unjustly charged of spoiling all infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace and confining the Jews promises to earthly and temporal blessings of which I have acquiâ—ted my self in my Letter to Mr. Baily Sect. 1.2 yet I never granted that the Covenant with Abraham did contain no other than evangelical promises of grace in Christ nor that these very promises Gen. 17 4 5 6 7 8. were all evangelical promises nor any of them in that sense which is obvious to the understanding according to common Rules of Grammar but onely according to the Apostles Exposition who never so expounded the promise Gen. 17.7 as if
he take the promise to be made to Christ the seed as the Head of a visible Church then still it speaks for us Answer This is doughty disputing likely to turn the edg of our weapons against our selves when the Antagonist must yield him what he would have and me thinks he should have brought some Expositour or some argument for him and not so pitifully beg what he should prove To the contrary I urge that by Christ Gal. 3.16 is meant either Christ personal or Christ mystical or both and not as the Head of a visible Church 1. That the promises said to be made to Abraham 's seed that is Christ are of the blessing of Abraham which is righteousness and the spirit Gal. 3.8 9 14. the inheritance v. 18. life v. 21. not bare outward privileges But these things belong onely to Christ and his mystical body not his meer visible Church Ergo they are not the seed there meant 2. From the condition or means by which the promise is made good and that is faith v. 14 22. But the meer visible Church may be without faith therefore the promise is not made to it 3. By the express determination of the Apostle v. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham vers 29. And if ye be Christs that is by faith v. 26 27. then are ye Abraham 's seed and heirs according to the promise which a man would think were enough to silence thâ—se that make the promises to belong to unbelievers as Abrahams seed 4. The current Protestant interpreters of note such as Beza Piscator Perkins c. go this way But Mr. Sidenham thinks to evince his purpose from v. 14. where the blessing of Abraham is said to come on the Gentiles through Christ and this blessing of Abraham was not personal but to him and his seed this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed For it cannot be called Abraham s blessing except it come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abraham 's Covenant now this was the absolute form of Abraham 's blessing I will be a God of thâ—e and thy seed and this very blessing is come on the Gentiles through Christ as it came on Abraham and therefore it must be to believing Gâ—ntiles and their seed else it will neither â—e Abraham 's blâ—ssing in the form nor faâ—ness of it Abraham 's blessing will descend on the Gentiles clipâ— half off not like it self and it must needs be a very uncouth saying to all judicious ears to say that Abraham 's blessing is come on the Gentiles by Christ as it was on the Jews by Abraham and to exclude half the subjects at once from any right to it for so you must if you cast out the seed of Gentile believers To which I answered that had not the Assembly at Westminster Confession of Faith chap. 28. art 4. cited Gal. 3.9 14. with Gen. 17.7 9. to prove infant-baptism of a believing parent I should not have transcribed so much of this arguing The blessing of Abraham must come on the Gentiles saith he according to the substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Ergo on Gentile believers and their seed Now what is the blessing of Abraham and what the substantial terms of the Covenant and what seed of Abraham did it come on and how 1. The blessing is plainly expressed v. 8.9 to be justification v. 14. to be the receiving the promise of the spirit The same Apostle Rom. 4 6 9. placeth the blessedness of Abraham in the imputation of righteousness through faith Beza Annot. in Gal. 3.14 Et spiritus nomine benedictionem aeternae spiritualis vitae intelligo Perkins Comment on Gal. 3.14 That the blessing of Abraham that is righteousness and life everlasting Piscat Schol. in Gal. 3.14 Ut benedictio illâ— Abrahae promissa de qua supra v. 8. ad Gentes perveniret in Christo quatenus nimirum illae Christo inseruntur per fidem Diâ—son in Gal. 3.14 benedictio Abrahae id est justitia vita aeterna 2. The substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 are thus set down by Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 10. The substance of the Covenant on Gods part was to be Abraham 's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and of sanctification and of everlasting life On Abraham 's part the substance of the Covenant was to believe in the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Not one that I know that makes the blessing or the substance of the Covenant to be an initial seal visible Church-membership and such like meer Ecclesiastical privileges 3. The seed of Abraham to whom the blessing is promised is his spiritual seed and it onely Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.14 of Abraham namely promised to Abraham and to his spiritual posterity onely Trapp Comment on Gal. 3.14 v. 14. The promise of the spirit that is the spiritual promise made to Abraham and his spiritual posterity The Text it self â—al 3.7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham 4. The means is through faith Gal. 3.14 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham vers 9. From which I infer that he that would conclude from hence that the blessing of Abraham comes upon the Gâ—ntiles fathers and infant-children and that this is according to the substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 must hold that all children of Gentile believers are elect and believers and that they are justified as Abraham was which Mr. M. and Mr. G. disclaim and indeed is manifestly false being contrary to Scripture and experience But Mr. Sidenham thinks to infer hence a meer Ecclesiastical privilege of right to an initial seal which is not at all meant Gal. 3.14 by the blessing of Abraham nor ever meant by the Covenant Gen. 17.7 nor would the promise be true if meant of it for many of Abrahams seed had no right to Circumcision or visible Church-membership Surely according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses all the posterity of Abraham by Ishmael the sons of Keturah Esaus were excluded and therefore the word of Gods promise so expounded had been false As for Mr. Sidenhams Reasons there 's no force in them The first may be retorted The first is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must not come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed also universally for it came not on Abraham and his natural seed universally nor is it true this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham for it is come on Abraham not simply as a believer but as a father of
made to infer salvation and Zaccheus in that he was the son of Abraham proved to be one that the son of man came to seek and save which can agree onely to elect persons therefore the term seed of Abraham equipollent to son of Abraham as Evangelically such notes onely elect persons or true believers Piscat Analys Luc. 19.9 Electio Dei patris significatur v. 9. his verbis eo quod ipse quoque filius Abrahae est ubi intelligitur non simpliciter filius secundum carnem sed filius secumdum promissionem Dei qua promiserat ipsum futurum patrem credentium schol filius Abrahae nempe filius secundum promissionem id est electus vide Rom. 9. v. 7. and 8. New Annot on Luke 19.9 Is the son of Abraham to be a son of Abraham is to be chosen freely Rom. 9.8 To walk in the steps and faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 12. And generally to do the good works of Abraham John 8.39 Whereby we moy be assured of Election to eternal life Rom. 8.29 30. 2 Pet. 1.10 Trap com in Luke 19.9 He also is a son of Abraham that is freely elected Rom. 9. A follower of Abrahams faith Rom. 4.12 And a doer of his works John 8.39 3. It is said by our Lord Christ John 8.39 If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham he granted them ver 37. To be Abrahams seed by nature but not the seed of Abraham according to the Covenant Evangelical because their practise was unlike Abrahams Whence I inferre they Onely Evangellically are Abrahams children or seed even of those who descended from Abraham by generation who are like unto Abraham in their Actions But such onely are true believers or elect persons therefore true believers or elect persons onely are Abrahams children or seed Evangelical Diodati Annot. on John 8.39 children namely true and lawfull imitators â—f Abrahams faith Father of all believers wherein consists the true meaning of this name of children of Abraham Rom. 4.16 and 9.6 7. Gal. 3.7 4. With our Lord Christs words accord the words of Paul who doth plainly determine that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 That God would be the God of Abrahams seed as it was Eavngelical belongs are believers or elect persons and no other Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Is so plain to prove it that the very reading the words is enough to clear it to a heedfull reader For therein the Apostle doth shew how the promises Gen. 17.7 Are true of the Gentiles as well as the Jewes in that Abraham is considered therein as the father of believers v. 11. And the father of circumcision that is as Beza of the circumcised yet not a father to all of them nor to them onely but to those circumcised ones onely and with them to all other that believe or walk in the steps of that faith which our father of us believing Gentiles Abraham had being yet uncircumcised v. 11.12 Now if Abraham be considered in the promises as Evangelical onely as the Father of believers of either sort circumcised or uncircumcised then the seed of Abraham are onely believers or elect persons And to this purpose doth Master Dickson paraphrase the words thus Abraham received from God the sign of circumcision to seal the Covenant of grace or the righteousness of faith which â—e had uncircumcised to that end that he might be father of uncircumcised believers and in like manner of circumcised to wit who are both sons of the flesh and sons of the faith of Abraham Therefore the righteousness of faith is common to the circumcised and uncircumcised believers or them that follow the steps of the faith of Abraham not yet circumcised But Abraham is said to be the father of believers in that he is the first eminent example of faith and of righteousness imputed by faith and by his example an Author to all that they may believe Beza in his note on Rom. 4.12 For as speaking of the uncircumcised he said not simply that Abraham was the father of them all but of them onely who should believe he also hath deservedly kept the same distinction in the Jewes because as I said before it is not simply the Apostles purpose to teach Abraham to be the father of both the uncircumcised and the circumcised but also especially by what reason he is the father of both which is his scope For to be a child of Abraham before God and to be justifyed by faith cohere Again v. 13. shewes the same For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law but through the righteousness of faith I shall use the words of the same Authors Dickson thus paraphraseth v. 13. He proves Abraham to be Father not but of believers onely uncircumcised alike and circumcised and together addes a third argument The promise made to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the land of Canaan in time and of the world and heaven in truth came not to him by the law or by the condition of works but happened to him by an absolute promise to him already justified by faith and having the righteousness of faith Therefore his sons are not they which are of the law seeking to wit righteousness by works but they onely who are by faith seeking righteousness by faith that is all and onely believers circumcised alike and uncircumcised to whom equally the common righteousness of faith and the inheritance is promised The argument is of force for if father Abraham be not the heir of the world nor have righteousness but by faith certainly none are his sons but believers who have righteousness by faith and by righteousness the inheritance Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.13 But in these words there is a continuation of the former conclusion the application of the example of Abraham neither to the circumcised neither to the uncircumcised otherwise not availing unless two things be shewed to wit that God made that Covenant not with Abraham alone but with his heirs also and that under the name of his posterity any who shall believe that covenant like Abraham are understood Therefore Paul conjoynes the promises of God made to Abraham as it were into one body and when he had taught all believers whether cicrumcised or uncircumcised to be Abrahams sons he verily deservedly calls Abraham the heir of the world by the term world understanding all Nations and therein following the Lords stâ—ps For when the Lord had said to Abraham that he would be the God of him and his seed after he expounded what he understood by the term seed to wit all the nations of the earth when he said that it should be that in him he would vouchsafe them all his grace The next v. also confirms it v. 14. For if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void and the promise made of none effect
which Mr. Dickson thus paraphraseth if they which are of the Law or which seek righteousness by works were the sons of Abraham and heirs of life and partakers of righteousness then faith should be made void and the promise vain But this is absurd Therefore they which are of the law are not heirs but alone believers are sons of Abraham and heirs of life and righteousness The 16. v. doth yet more plainly express that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 As Evangelical is made are believers onely Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that onely which is of the law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all Upon which saith Mr. Dickson with that uery counsel God appointed that the inheritance should be of faith that it might agpear to be of grace or by grace Therefore onely and all believers uncircumcised and circumcised alike are heirs The inheritance is of faith and by grace by the Counsel of God that the promise might be sure to all the â—eed not onely to that which is the seed of Abraham by the law of nature and hath faith also that is the circumcised Jewes believing but also to that seed which is not by the law of nature or the flesh but onely by the faith of Abraham that is the uncircumcised believing Gentiles Therefore unless suspending the promise of righteousness and the inheritance upon the condition of the law to be performed we would make it unsure and uncertain the whole seed of Abraham or all and onely believers circumcised and uncircumcised are heirs by faith with father Abraham who according to faith is father of all us believers of Jewes and Gentiles Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.16 Paul manifestly devides into two members that which in general he had said of the whole seed of Abraham that is believers both circumcised and uncircumcised Pisc. Sch. to all the seed that is of Abraham to wit all believers Diodati to all namely to the spiritual seed according to the faith of which God intended to speak in that excellent promise I will be thy God and of thy seed after the Gen. 17.7 Lastly the Apostle interprets the promise Gen. 17.5 That Abraham should be the father of many Nations thus that the Gentiles should be his seed by faith v. 17. as it is written I have made thee a father of many Nations on which Master Dickson By force of the divine promise promising that he should be the father of many Nations Abraham embraced for sons all believers to be ingrafted into his seed and so in vertue of the promise as it were begat or conceived believers to himself as sons promised The new Annot on Rom. 4.17 I have made thee a Father See Gen. 17.5 Not of those only that should issue from him according to the flesh but also of those among all nations that by faith should be adopted and received into his spiritual family 5. The texts also which are Gal. 3.7 16 â—9 and 4 28. Are very pregnant to the same purpose that the seed of Abraham to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical is made are only true believers or elect persons The first of these places is that which is asserted in terms Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham where the speech is equipollent to an exclusive For having v. 2.5 told them they must have the spirit and be Abrahams children either by the works of the law or by faith and determined that they had not the spirit by the works of the law but by faith supposing that they who are children have received the spirit as it is v. 14. it plainly followes that they only are the children of Abraham which are of faith even as Protestant divines conclude from Gal. 2.16 that justification is by faith only because the disjunction being sufficient justifycation is either by faith or by works and works excluded it followes we are justified by faith onely And so Mr. Dickson conceives that the Apostles argument is Gal. 3.7 They onely who are of the faith or who seek to be justified by faith and not by works are the children of Abraham therefore the only reason of justification is by faith Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.7 yet you know that is to say this doctrine is clear and resolved upon amongst Christians that the true children of Abraham comprehended in the covenant which God made with him and his posterity are not the carnal Jewes which are borne of him or joined to him by circumcision and by professing of their ceremonies but all such as according to Abrahams example do renounce all confidence in their own proper works and put it wholly in Gods promises and grace in Christ as Abraham was made a father example and paragon of faith to all those to whom the covenant made with him was to appertain The like is the determination of Mr. Perkins that I may omit others who in his com on Gal. 3.7 Saith the promise and election of God makes properly children of Abraham and that the true mark of the child of Abraham is to be of the faith of Abraham and that profession of Abrahams faith and descent from Isaac are not sufficient to prove men children of Abraham without following of his faith The texts Gal 3.16 29. have been considered before and our inferences vindicated from Mr. Sidenhams evasions The other to wit Gal. 4.28 Speaks to the same purpose to which the fore alleaged texts do Now we Brethren as Isaâ—c was are children of the promise that is we of whom the Jerusalem which is above is mother that is as Beza Annot. adde v. 26. we who embraced Christ adde v. 27. he shewes the true sons of Abraham are born spiritually by the Gospel adde v. 28. are children of the promise that is that seed to which pertaineth that promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed out of all which it appears that as the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee was Evangelical it was made only to the elect of God and true believers and they only are Abrahams seed there meant 6. I shall next adde the consideration of that text Rom. 9.6 7 8. Whâ—re the Apostle speaks thus not as though the word of God hath taken none effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed I suppose it will not be denyed that this passage is an answer to an objection occasioned by the intimating of the rejection of the Jewes from being Gods people v.
of them For in the Evangelical sense to whom God promiseth to be God he promiseth to justifie them to regenerate them to raise them up to eternall life as appears by our Saviours own reasoning Luke 20.37 38. where he infers from Gods avouching himselfe to be the God of Abraham his living to God rising from the dead to eternal life by the Apostles inference Rom. 4.16 from thence that righteousness is by faith Rom. 9.7 8. determining them to be elect people of God to whom he hath promised to be God Heb. 8 10 c. But God doth not promise to every believers child to justifie regenerate and raise him to eternal life for if he did promise it he would perform it to say he makes a promise to any and to say they have not the efficacie of it is to make God a lyar whereas many children of believers are never justified regenerated nor shall be raised to eternall life He performs it to all true believers and elect persons and to none other therefore none others are meant there by Abrahams seed in the Evangelical sense 8 Lastly the words of John Baptist Matth 3.9 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism saying to them And think not so say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham do evince â— that repenting and believing persons though raised by God of stones without naturall generation are the children of Abraham to whom the promise is made Gen. 17.7 2. That it was not their naturall descent from Abraham without repentance and Gospel faith which did entitle them to Gods favour or to his baptism and therefore it follows thence that the children of Abraham to whom the promise is Gen 17.7 are onely the elect or true believers 3. That to be the child of a believer is not a sufficient title to Gods favour or baptism To this purpose Paraeus Com. in Matth. 3.9 He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to fleshly birth but pertain only to believing spiritual posterity For they are not sons of Abraham who according to the flesh are of Abraham but who are according to the spirit Piscat Sch. in Matâ—h 3.9 His sentence is although ye come from Abraham according to the flesh yet ye are not therfore those sons of Abraham to whom pertains the promise of eternall life made to Abraham and his seed For this belongs to them who imitate Abrahams faith and piety Diodati Annot. on Matth. 3 9. And think not do not dally with your selves to think that because you are issued from Abraham according to the flesh you are in Gods favour and free from his judgement for with him the imitation of Abrahams faith and piety is the onâ—ly thing which demonstrates and causeth to be the children of Abraham and not the corporall generation Rom 4.12 Now such children may be brought forth of all Nations yea and out of these stones Neither do you perswade your selves that by your perdition Gods people shall perish for Gods people shall always subsist in these spiritual children of Abraham towards whom Gods covenant and promises shall be verified This then is the constant Doctrine of the New Testament that the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall is made onely to the elect and true believers that they onely are Abrahams seed spirituall and so onely in the covenant of grace by Gods promise and therefore if it be true that they onely who are in covenant which Paedobaptists say when they say the Seal follows the Covenant are to be baptized not any one because he is the child of a believer but the elect and true believers are to be baptized and so their own argument for Infant-baptism overthroweth it SECT XXIX The Allegation of Rom. 9.6 7 8 Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall belongs are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes Answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch 6. TO my Allegation of Rom 9.6 7 8. in my Examen part 3. sect 4. Mr. Blake undertakes to give an answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. And first having belied me as borrowing from Stapleton the Jesuit and learning to a â—air to follow him though to my remembrance I never read that passage in him which he allegeth nor made any use of his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans or any other of his works in that Book of mine he proceeds thus in his scoffing calumniating fashion like a Satyrist rather than a Disputant We have drunk up the Protestants poyson and Mr. T. his great care is to preserve his party by the Jesuits Antidoâ—â— be is wholly beholding to them for the Receipt Which is Mr. Blakes manifest calumny as the quotations in my Examen part 3 sect 4. in which he might see that I received it from the most eminent Protestants and alleged but one Papist and he no Jesuit but one of the better note and since the quotations in the foregoing Section do fully prove and it were easie to produce treble the number if need were But I find it in vain to endeavour the satisâ—ying of such eager and through prejudice selfe-blinding Antagonists as Mr. Blake is I could if I liked such Arts as Mr. Blake useth tell Mr Blake he borrows from the Jesuit Bellarmin who against Peter Martyr saying the promise Gen. 17.7 is not universall concerning the children of beleivers but hath place onely in the predestinate replies This is said without proof for the words of the Scripture are absolute nor is there any mention of predestination in that whole chapter But Mr Blake promiseth me square dealing in the examining my Argument and sets down my words at length and then in stead of answering it puts divers Quaere's to me yeelding first to me that the Text Gen. 17.7 was in that place Rom. 9.6 7 8 brought into question by the Apostle 1 saith he How Bain and Ameâ— come to the name of Remonstrants I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-remonstrants Answer And so aâ—so did I and therefore called them the answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants not Remonstrants as Mr. Blake not heeding my words suggests as one not willing to omit any thing whether right or wrong which may render me odious or contemptible 2. saith he Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the Covenant there spoken to was the word of the Law and not of Promise I am sure in his Analysis on this chapter to the Romans of which Mr. T. should not be ignorant little lesse than vapouring of his examination of it in Oxford Apolog. page 131. he spake in another manner even in Mr. T. his own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other The sons of the flesh with
he proves nor to shew how he proves out of the text he allegeth but leaves his reader to fish out his meaning as he can from scattered passages However I shall view his dictates He denies that the Jewes had only a Covenant of grace among them which was made to some choice ones among them And yet the Apostle directly teacheth that the promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed as a promise of saving grace was not made to all Israel but the elect only Rom. 9.6 7 8. And clear it is that the Covenant made with the body of the Israelites at mount Sinai was the Covenant of workes as is plain from Rom. 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 7 9. Gal. 3.12 and 4.24 25. Heb. 8 9 10 11. c. and 12.18 19 21. It is false that he hath any where proved that the external Ecclesiastical right to circumcision came from the circumcised persons interest in the Covenant of grace invested with Church-covenant Neither did God appoint all them to receive the visible seal thereof meaning Circumcision for he did not appoint the females or males under eight dayes old to be circumcised though in the Covenant as well as the infant male of eight dayes old He bids us see Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 11 12 13. and 26.3 4 5. and 28.12 13 14. But I can see none of his dictates in those texts I find there that God made a covenant with Abraham after renewed it to Isaac and Jacob assuring to their inheriting posterity the inheritance of Canaan the multiplying of them c. that God injoyned circumcision to them for a memorial and assurance of that covenant This covenant as containing the promise of Canaan c. to the natural postority of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is expressed to be by reason of Abrahams obedience Gen. 26.5 circumcision is required Gen. 17. and Exod. 19. Levit. 26. obedience is required to the laws given by Moses They that term the Covenant Exo. 19. a covenant of works speak sutable to the Apostle Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 yet I deny not but in Covert expressions Gen. 17. and elswere God promised Christ to the elect whether Jews or Gentiles and blessing that is righteousness and eternal life by faith in him Gal. 3.16 c. which Abraham and all the ancient Saints expressed by faith Iohn 8.56 and elswhere Now it is not true that those covenant Fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob recieved the covenant Evaneglical in referrence to their natural children nor in respect of justification before God and external life had a contrary covenant of life and death grace and workes made with them For though the Jews succeding were under the whole law of Moses because of transgressions yet not so as to have life by it Gal. 3.17 18 19 21. noâ— is it any absurdity to say that the legal justitiaries who rested in the law were at one and the same time externally under the blessing of God in respect of their outward prosperity in Canaan and yet internally under the curse of God Gal. 3.10 as seeking righteousness before God by their observing the Law It is no where said that any other than Abraham is the root or first fruits to his seed Rom 11.16 nor they termed his seed lump branches any other way than either naturally or spiritually that is by natural generation or by following his faith by vertue of election Rom. 11 16. doth not say Abraham was the root as recieving the covenant for the branches but as propagating the branches Nor need we say that he either received a covenant oâ— works alone in referrence to them all elected or that he recieved the Covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all The plain doctrine of the Scripture is set down above Mr. C's dictates are meer phantasms without Scripture The substance of the Covenanâ— is a novel expression and ambiguous I deny not the covenant Gen. 17. to be evangelical yet I concieve it not purely such but as I say in my Exercit. pag. 2. mixt that is containing political and Evangelical promises I deny not but it was the jews covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or their ordinances as their privilege yea and his presence therein until the Messiah came yet so as that when thay set up Idols the glory of God departed from them Ezek. 11.22 23. They had also Gods oracles with them deliverance from Egypt Christ to be with them in the wilderness nor do I deny these to have bin by vertue of Christs mediation yet so far as these were national mercies they were proper to the Jews What ever be meant by the Covenant the promise Rom 9 4. they do not agree to Gentile believers And though I say they were by vertue of Christs mediation yet I concieve the mediation of Christ was directly for the elect only for others only obliquely by consequent and by accident by reason of the Cohabitation of them on earth I deny not that filling the Temple with smoake Rev. 15.8 allusively to that which was 1 Kings 8.10 11. Isai. 6.1 2 3 4. might restifie the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people and for their sakes in a way of justice against his and their enemies I neither do nor need say that Canaan was all which God promised the Jews I grant it was promised to them as an everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 But the wrod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gr translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting notes freequently but a duration of some age or ages as 2 Chron. 2.4 c. I deny not but the Patriarchs looked futher than Canaan Heb. 11.9 10. I deny not that the promise of Canaan was in some sense ratified in Christ and all other temporal blessings to the elect now 1 Cor. 3.21 22 23. that Christ is said to drive out their enemies Exod. 23.20 21. and that the land they possessed was called Immanuelâ— land Esâ—i 8.8 that sundry were excluded from thence for unbelief Heb. 3 laâ—â— compared with ch 4 2. though if it be not warily explained Moses and Aaron should be guilty of the Gospel sin of unbelief If God promised to be a God to them and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17 7 8. then the promise of Canaan is a branch of the promise I wil be a God to them If the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams Covenant sealed to them and theirs by circumcision yet had no lots in Canâ—an then persons were to be circumcised to whom the promise belonged not I grant that Christ was mediator of the Covenant with Abraham so far as it contains evangelical promises but deny that it was held out to all the Jews by the sacrafices For though the typical sacrâ—fices in respect of purifâ—ing the flesh did purge the whole Congregation yet none were purâ—ed by Christs blood but the elect The high Preist bare the
glory and beauty in the ordinances of the new Testament Yet first some of them as the preaching of the Gospel which is the most glorious those that are out of the visible Church may partake of and those whâ—ch Mr. Bl. counts within may not partake of I mean infants and some others Secondly that fatness which is meant Rom. 11.17 passeth from the root to the tree and thence to the branches and therefore he that is said to bee partaker of the fatness of the olive tree is first said to bee partaker of the root but be the root Abraham or as Mr. Bl. would have it Isaac and Jacob with him ordinances pass not from them It is true Circumcision was first begun in Abraham but all the rest of the Jewish ordinances are according to Scripture rather derived from Moses then Abraham and to say they were partakers of the root that is of Circumcision which was the onely ordinance Abraham Isaac and Jacob did partake of is both false for they were not circumcised and being so empty a thing as that it 's termed with all the Jewish ordinances a shadow Col. 2.17 Heb. 10.1 it had no glory then at all And for Baptism the Lords Supper c. they passed not from Abraham Isaac and Jacob nor were they partakers of them but were instituted by Christ in the New Testament Thirdly the partaking of the root and fatness of the olive tree was by the ingraffing and consequent of it But the ingraffing according to Mr. Bl. doth not make them partakers of outward ordinances For the chief of ordinances to wit the preaching of the Gospel was the instrument of their ingraffing as his own allegation shewes pag. 278. from Acts 11.21 and so was antecedent to the ingraffing nor by the ingraffing were they partakers of the other outward ordinances For though the heart were wrought to a professed subjection to the way of God in ordinances which is Mr. Bls. ingraffing and so ingraffed Yet they might bee never partakers of outward ordinances such as Baptism and the Lords Supper if either sickness or death prevented the administration or want of an administratour or the elements c. hindered Fourthly the fatness of the olive tree makes the partakers fresh and fruitful But that is not outward ordinances but the spirit of God righteousness by faith c. of which I shall speak more in vindicating my fourth argument Mr. Bl. saith farther That the holiness Rom. 11.16 is such as is communicable from parent to childe that is necessarily communicated as a root communicates to branches This is so plain that if it be denied all the Apostles dispute falls Answ. It is true that if the holiness bee not communicated from Abraham to all his children by faith who are believers as he was the Apostles dispute fals but the Apostles dispute holds though it bee not communicated to every childe of every believing father which is Mr. Bls. conceit as his following words shew Yea hence is a good argument to prove the holiness not to bee meant of meer visible Church-membership nor the root of every parent professing faith because many of their children are never Christian visible Churchmembers as experience abundantly proves and so have not this holiness communicated to them Yea Mr. Bl. saith who knowes not that holy fathers have unholy children regenerate parents have issue unregenerate I may add abortives natural fools still-born bred up in Mahometanism renegado's unbaptised excommunicated and consequently not visible Churchmembers or federally holy And it is most false in this holiness of visible Churchmembership or as Mr. Bl. cals it federal that the proposition holds as is the Father so is the childe the Father being without the childe is without the Father being within the childe is within in regard of Church estate Covenant holiness eo nomine because a branch of such a root a childe of such a Father which Mr. Bl. dictates here but proves not and hath been often refuted by me nor is there any thing in Rom. 11.16 for it Yea Mr. Bls. own interpretation overthrowes this position For if the root bee as his position is Abraham Isaac and Jacob then it is not every believing Father and if the root bee every believing Father then all the branches of the tree are natural and they derive their holiness by descent of nature whereas it is plain from the text and Mr. Bls. fourth position is to the same purpose that the Jews onely are natural branches the Gentiles are all ingraffed branches Mr. Cuthbert Sidenham in his exercit ch 8. takes upon him to demonstrate holiness and Churchmembership of the children of believing Gentiles from Rom. 11.15 16 17. and to answer my arguments ch 9. Against my opinion of the ingraffing into the invisible Church he urgeth then persons may be broken off from the invisible Church and takes notice of my answer in my Examen p. 64. but saith nothing to my answer in my Apology p. 76. though he could not but know of it taking on him to answer my arguments in the next pages before The rest he brings is from Mr. B. and is answered by me in my Review part 1. sect 6. c. I agree with him in the position that Abraham is the root meant Rom 11.16 and that he is a root exemplary onely nor do I deny that the Apostles arguing is from a special prerogative to Abraham to whom the promise was given Gen. 17.7 and that the promise did comprehend the elect of his natural seed and that God had a more special regard to his natural seed in that promise then to other menâ— natural seed yet not universally to his seed nor is it true that the Apostle makes the branches holy Rom. 11.16 by a prerogative of grace grounded on the promise of God made to believing Fathers and their seed which is the same in the New Testament and the Old as hee urgeth out of Dr Willet For there is not that promise in the New Testament or old And therefore the Argument upon this conceit can have no strength in it Pag. 71. he layes down this position Wee believing Gentiles are ingraffed into Abrahams Covenant in the room of the natural branches which were broken off Concerning which I say that though I deny not the believing Gentiles to have interest in Abrahams Covenant Gen. 17.7 that is God is their God and they have righteousness by faith as Abraham had yet the Apostle doth not speak of their ingraffing into Abrahams Covenant that â—s Mr. Sidenhams mistake but into the olive tree that is as Mr. Bl. the whole body of the Church which he would have meant of the visible I of the invisible Now to Mr. Sidenhams arguments to that position I yeeld the conclusion of the first that believing Gentiles and their children are graffed in but not all or any as their children and that the ingraffing is sutable to the breaking off that is that as the Jewes and their
I grant but deny what he adds and still stands by vertue of the Covenant to believers and their children For neither is there such a Covenant and if there were yet Abraham could be a root onely to his natural seed not to Gentiles by vertue of that Covenant And what he adds that though old Testament ordinances were taken away with the Jews and that Church-state yet the root is not taken away but the New Testament priviledges grow on the same root and our ingraffing in gives us to be partakers of the fatness of them as well as it gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges until they were broken off letting pass the vanity of the speeches that our ingraffing gave to the Jews the participation of former priviledges which they had not by our ingraffing but their own propagation from the root and that the Jews had the priviledges till they were broken off whereas the persons broken off never had the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 all this answer avoids not the objection but plaiâ—ly grants the argument For if the Old Testament ordinances and the Jewish Churchstate were taken away which all that are against a national Church-frame must aver then if by fatness be meant outward ordinances and Churchstate the Gentiles cannot be said to partake of them nor they be meant by the fatness Rom. 11.17 Let 's examine what Mr. Bl. saith to this argument 1. He denies that he ever said every believing parent is the root a root he makes them not the root But by his leave I charge him with nothing but what doth plainly follow from his words For that is the root according to him which communicates Covenant holiness and Church-state and of whom it is verified if the root be holy so are the branches But this is said by him in his Vindic. Faed p. 277. and elsewhere of every believing parent therefore if Mr. Bl. avouch his own arguings he makes every believing parent the root Rom. 11.16 17. What Mr. Bl. speaks that other parents are roots to their posterity is granted and needed not to be proved by Mr. Blâ—ut â—ut that they being holy persons are holy roots communicating Covenant holiness to their children is not prâ—ved by Mr. Bl. That the Covenant or promise of God made to Abraham Gen. 15.5 17 4 7. did assure and â—o constitute Abraham to be the root of the Church of true believers is not denied nor that Circumcision did seal to him the righteousness of faith as a believer and the father of believers Rom. 4.11 12. But the form denominating him Father of believers or root of the Olive is propagating them by his exemplary faith Nor was David by his Covenant or Jesse or any other believing parent a root or father in the sense Rom. 4.11 11.16 17. Though they were natural roots to their posterity and builders of the house of Israel and the Fathers 1 Cor. 10.1 by natural generation yet none are said to build as Abraham from whom the fatness Rom. 11.17 is derived and not from any other intermediate father For Abraham had been father though he had had no child by natural generation Mat. 3.9 descending from him Nor can it be tâ—ue that he is termed the root by reason of natural generation For then the Gentiles had not been branâ—hes and children and â—ll the branches had been natural contrary to v. 21 24. To this saith Mr. Bl. He makes them wild onely at their first ingraffing and so was all Terahs race wild likewise till that change of faith wrought in Abrahams call and the Covenant God entred with him we now are natural as they were and cannot be called wild but in our first original Answ. They that were ingraffed were still branches of the wild Olive and so are we that are believers of the Gentiles for that title is by nature and natural descent Rom. 11.24 which is not changed by grace though the fruit and sap be changed that is the qualities and actions by ingraffing We that are believers of the Gentiles are not the branches according to nature for that is plainly meant of the Jews onely Rom. 11.24 when it is said they that are according to nature shall be graffed in their own Olive Which shews that the term they that are according to nature iâ— proper to the Jews But if every believing parent should be the root Rom. 11.16 17. then every Gentile believers child should be a natural branch contrary to v. 24. for they are all besides nature and no believing Gentile nor his child is now or hath been a natural branch in the sense the Apostle means Rom. 11.24 But Mr. Bls. chief objection is this If the ingraffing be by a saving faith onely to derive saving graces personalâ—y inherent as a fruit of election from Abraham then it must needs be that we are elect in Abraham Abraham may say without me ye can do nothing and he that believeth in me out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water And we may say the life that we live in the flesh we live by faith in the son of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham be the root noâ— onely respective to a conditional Covenant but to the graces under condition covenanted Answ. 1. This objection may be thus retorted If the ingraffing be by a faith of profession onely to derive onely outward ordinances outward priviledges Covenant holiness visible Churchmembership as a fruit of the Covenant from Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root then we are iâ— Covenant in Abraham Isaac and Jacob They may say without us ye cannot be visible Churchmembers c. he that professeth faith in us shall have outward Church priviledges the priviledges we have in the visible Church we have by profession of faith in the son of Terah This must necessarily follow if Abraham Isaac and Jacob be the root respective to the Covenant and Covenant holiness as Mr. Bl. asserts when Mr. Bl. hath freed himself from these absurdities I shall have somewhat more to answer him 2. In the mean time my answer in my Apology is that the absurdities follow not on my opinion who make not Abraham a rooâ— as communicating faith by infusion or impetration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing in which sense he is stiled the father of believers Rom. 4 11 12. To this Mr. Bl. in his flirting fashion replies thus A root not by communication but example an ingraffing not to have any thing communicated from the root but to imitate it is such a Catachresis as may well make all Rhetorick â—shamed of it and if the Sun ever saw a more notable piece of non sense I am to seek what sense is A root is too low in the earth to have its examples followed and a syens sucks in juyce but knowes not how to imitate Answ. 1. Mr. Bl. grosly abuseth me by insinuating as if I mentioned a root not by communication but example
and ingraffing not to have any thing from the rooâ— but to imitate it But this I said that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion or impeâ—ration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example whereby righâ—eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern according to which God gives both though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause which the Apostle doth Rom. 4.11 12. and as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. pag. 1â— Dr. Willet Diodati Pareus do so expound the root and father of the faithfull so that if there bee non-sense these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it as well as my self which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root as communicating Ordinances visible Churchmembership c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants Sure not by natural generation for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way not by teaching or example for they are not things imitable nor are they to them teachers or visible examples not by communicating to them the Covenant that is Gods act What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick and less truth in his explication then in mine What hee adds that whatsoever kinde of root I make it yet it is a communicative root vers 17. I grant it in the sense expressed not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration but as an â—dea And what hee saith further that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's yet in the main they agree is as much as I need to shew that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onely as a pattern then it is to term him a Father who begets onely as an example And whereas hee saith both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a Father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom 9.4 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense that is to be partakers of outward ordinances which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption Rom. 9.4 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham belonged the Covenants and adoption and other pâ—iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the flâ—sh though not imparted to all there alledged is denied Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example and therefore he is a root no other way â—hen I assigne if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed Yet hee adds the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude as hee doth impart to his issue as before so hee is a patâ—ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. â—2 quoted by Mr. T. is set forth yet that place is too palpably abused Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions yet not all nor onely parents are such nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onely but because hee as the Aâ—chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle Mr. Bl. tels mee The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed or the profession of faith which hee made All that were professedly Jews and all that were professedly Christians wâ—lk in the steps of that faith All circumcised believers had not that faith that justâ—fies nor yet all the uncircumcised and Abraham is a father of both Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed onely in that which is external his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here For it appears not onely from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent specially v. 9 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed â—o them also that the Apostle speaks of that faith onely which is justifying which is believing with the heart Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth or the profession of faith which he made which a Judas or Simon Magus might have and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies As for Mr. Bls. reason it is against himselfe for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying both might be known by Gods word and be followed as a pattern though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith who do believe as hee did though they never saw or heard of Abrahams bâ—lieving as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same though he never saw the Copy He adds And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onely the root as he is onely the â—ather of believers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of believers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 9.16 17 18 19 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out chap. 11. as one example among many we find many that went before him Abel Enoch Noah and more that followed after him And I
should rather think that the Text by him produced proves without any contradiction that the Covenant made Abraham the father of believers he is the called three Father of us all and a Text quoted for it which is Gen. 17.5 A Father of many nations I have made thee And whether that be not by vertue of Covenant let the context be consulted together with the Apostles words Rom. 4.11 He closed with God in Covenant and accepted the seal of the Covenant that according to Covenant he might be the Father of all them that believe Answ. 1. If Abel Enoch Noah be set out as examples of believing with a faith justifying Heb. 11.4 5 6 7. by which Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith then it is not true which Mr. Bl. â—aith a little before that Abraham could be exemplary as a pattern to be followed onely in that which is external 2. Many before and after did believe as Abraham and they are examples to us Pleb 6.12 Yet we find not any whose faith was remarkably tried and approved as Abrahams and therefore none denoâ—inated the Fatâ—er of believers besides him 3. It is granted the promise or Covenant was the object of Abrahams faith and that it did assure that he should be the Father of believers both of Jews and Gentiles yet the reason of the denomination of Father of believers is made onely his eminent faith and the form denominating him is 〈◊〉 relation to them the foundation of which was his begetting believers exemplarily 4. Rom. 4.11 It is neither said Abraham closed with God in Covenant nor that he accepted the seal of the Covenant nor is there in that v. any mention of the Covenant or of the seal of the Covenant but â— 16 the Apostles having termed Abraham the Father of us all v. 17 18 19 20 21. he sets out his faith as most eminent and that as the reason of his Fatherhood Mr. Bl. to what I said the fatness of the Olive tree Diodati said truly is the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed and so the Apostle expresseth Gal. 3.14 saith This we grant and priviledge of ordinances contained this blessing and this promise we know the Gospel to be the power of God to salvation To which I reply The blessing Gal. 3.14 is jâ—stification v. 8 9. and the promise is of the spirit through faith which a man may be without though he have the outward â—riviledge of ordinances and therefore are not contained in it Nor is the Gospel the power of God to salvation without faith and therefore if the ingraffing be onely into the visible Church and a person have onely the priviledge of ordinances he may be without the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed Gal. 3.14 which is granted by Mr. Bl. to be the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 and therefore the fatness is more then outward priviledges and ordinances and I said truly it is too washy and frigid an exposition which doth so expound it and this washes away the dust Mr. Bl. casts on Rom. 11.17 But he argues thus That wherein the Jews exceeded the Gentiles is the fatness whereof the Gentiles partake when they are ingraffed instead of the Jews this none can deny for this makes them their equals and co partners But it is priviledges of ordinances how frigid and washy things soever Mr. T. little better then profanely makes it is the priviledge wherein Jews exceeded Gentiles Rom. 3.1 Deut. â— 7 8. Psal. 147.19 20. Therefore this is the fatness of the Olive Answ. The major is not true if universal and Mr. Bls. reason proves it For the Gentiles when ingraffed were not made equals and co partners in many things wherein the Jews before exceeded the Gentiles All those things mentioned Rom 9.4 5. were prerogatives of the Jewes never imparted to the Gentile believers yea that priviledge mentioned Rom. 3.1 the committing the Oracles of God the Christian Gentiles were never made equals and co partners with the Jews in God did never give oracles and answers to the Christian Gentiles nor the Tables of the Covenant and the Book of the Law to be kept as hee did to the Jews But that wherein the Jews and Gentiles were made equals and co partners was justification by faith and union with Christ by his spirit as Ephes. 3.6 Gal. 3.28 29 c. and therefore this argument is rightly retorted thus on Mr. Bl. That wherein the Gentiles ingraffed were equals and copartners with the Jews is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 But this is not the priviledges of Ordinances but justification and oneness in Christ ergo that is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 To what I said that the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews they being takâ— away hee saith if that of the Apostle bee true that the Gospel was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 then this cannot bee false If the Rock and Manna in the Wilderness bee the same as that on which wâ— seed 1 Cor. 10.2 the outward priviledges of that people may well the 〈◊〉 the same with ours Answ. 1. If the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews be the same with ours then not onely the preaching the Gospel but also Circumcision the Passeover the Temple High Priest sacrifices c. must be the same to us as to them 2. Though the Gospel be preached to us which was preached to them yet not in the same manner it was preached to them â—s future to us as accomplished nor by the same ordinances not by the slaying the Paschal Lamb the High Priests going into the most Holy place with bloud once a year c. 3. Noâ— is it true that the Rock and Manna in the wilderness is the same as that on which we seed 1 Cor. 10.3 4. though it be true the same Christ or spiritual meate and drinke was signified by the Manna they ate and the water out of the Rocke which they dranke which is signified by the Bread and Wine wee receive in the Lords Supper But this doth not shew the same outward priviledges of the Jewes and us but the same spirituall benefits signified to them which are to us He next tels me I have taken pains for my own full refutation for if Abraham be the root then the natural posterity of Abraham must of necessity be the natural branches which were cut off which he endeavours to prove from Rom. 9.2 3. 11.1 14. though the conclusion be not denied but oft asserted by me and then brings in Paul thus disputing Pauls kinsmen after the flesh were the Church visible not invisible But Pauls kindred according to the flesh were the branches cut off Ergo the Church visible not invisible was cut off Which conclusion doth not contradict any thing I assert who never made the Church invisible cut off but some branches broken off from the Church invisible which was
same Church you speak pure Anabaptism indeed and contradict the Scripture expresly which every where makes the Church of the Jewes and the Gentiles one and the same Church though under divers administrations I count it needless to annex any proofs because I think you dare not deâ—y it Answ. I do not mean onely the several administrations if I had so spoken I might have perhaps been judged to speak non-sence from which I can hardly acquit Mr. Ms. speeches that Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into different administrations of the Covenant and yet they are termed the divers administrations and the Church of Jews and Gentils by reason of them under divers administrations which kind of expressions though frequently used by Paedobaptists yet I can discern little in them but non-sence or tautologies or self-contradictings My meaning was very obvious That the Christian Church properly so called contradistinct from the Jewish visible Church is one society and that Baptism enters into the visible Church Christian that the visible Church Jewish contradistinct to the Christian is another society and Circumcision entred into it not into the Christian. And these things are so manifest that I thought it needless to bring proofs Who knowes not that circumcised Proselytes were in the Jewish Church visible and not in the Christian and baptised disciples of Christ cast out of the Jewish church who remained among the disciples of Christ in his Church that the Jewish Church visible persecuted the Christian Church visible Yea this is so apparent that Mr. M. both in his Sermon p. 27. speaks to the same purpose None might be received into the Communion of the Church of the Jews until they were circumcised nor in the communion of the Church of the Christians until they be baptised our Lord himself was circumcised as a professed member of the Church of the Jews and when he set up the new Christian Church hee would be initiated into it by the Sacrament of Baptism And in his Des. p. 169. I reply that the Christian Church was not fully set up and compleated with all ordinances of worship government officers till afterwards is readily granted but that it was not in fieri in erecting and framing and that Baptism was administred in reference to the Christian Church and that by Baptism men were initiated into this new administration or best edition of the Church I think no sound Divine did ever question p. 171. I answer Johns Baptism and Ministry was a praeludium to Christ and was wholly in reference to the Christian church which then began to be moulded and though there was not a new distinct Church of Christianity set up yet all this was preparing the materials of it and John did not admit them by Baptism as members to the Jewish Paedagogy which was then ready to be taken away but into that new administration which was then in preparing So that what Mr. M. terms in me the speaking of pure Anabaptism indeed is no other then his own and is so manifest as cannot be denied to be true nor is at all contradicted by the Scripture which never makes the Church christian visible and the Jewish to be one and the same but the Church invisible by election and believing of Jews and Gentils to be one and the same mystical body of Christ Ephes. 3.6 Now this one thing demonstrates that Baptism succeeds not into the place or office of Circumcision sith they had different institutions were for Churches as Mr. M. speaks under divers administrations whereof the one was national gathered by natural descent or Proselytism the other onely by the preaching of the Gospel and faith As Sâ—lmatius in his apparatus to his book Of the primacy of the Pope p. 20 21. proves the modern Bishops neither to succeed into the place of the Apostles nor the first Bishops because of their different institution name function and ordinaâ—ion so in like manner I prove that Baptism succeeds not in the place of Circumcision because of its different institution name office and state it hath from it Which iâ— further proved thus The command of Circumcision was different from the command of Baptism the command of Circumcision not inferring Baptism to which Mr. M. replies Now this follows that therefore Baptism doth not succeed in the room of Circumcisâ—on â— cannot guess the Lords day succeeds the 7th day in being Gods Sabbath but certainly the institution of it was long after the other Answ This proves that the one is not sâ—ated on the command of the other Baptism on the command of Circumcision they having dâ—fferent commands Gen. 17.10 c. Matth. 28.19 and consequently no rule for baptizing in the command of Circumcision nor the command of circircumcising infants a virtual command for baptising the rules of administring each of these being to be taken from their several commands and approved examples of practise and no other Lastly that Baptism succeeds Circumcision in the same use and end is more untrue For the uses of Circumcision were so far from being the same with the use of Baptism that they are rather contrary For the uses of Circumcision were to engage men to the use of the rest of the Jewish ceremonies to signifie Christ to come out of Abrahams family to be a partition wall between Jew and Gentile To this Mr. M. answers These all refer to the manner of administration peculiar to the Jews I have often granted there were some legal uses of Circumcision it obliging to that manner of administration and so they were part of the Jewish Paedagogy which is wholly vanished and therein Circumcision hath no succession but Baptism succeeds it as a seal of the same Covenant under a better administration as a set and constant initiating Ordinance onely I wonder that you say Circumcision did initiate into the Church of the Jews or rather the family of Abraham Answ. Mr. Ms. grant that the uses were part of the Jewish Padagogy and that it is wholly vanished and therein circumcision hath no succession doth infer that Circumcision and all its uses are vanished and have no succession For it had no uses but what did belong to the Jewish Paedagogy the initiating was into the Jewish Church or rather the family of Abraham which speech I used as conceiving that term more comprehensive and more proper in as much as the family of Abraham was it into which Circumcision did initiate first afore the people of Abrahams house were termed the Church of the Jews and that covenant which circumcision did signifie and confirm was peculiar to the Jews although Christ were typified by circumcision and righteousness by faith in the latent sense promised in the Covenant Gen. 17. which yet no more proves Baptism to succeed circumcision then to the cloud sea Manna water out of the Rock the Ark of Noah the Passeover the sacrifices of the Law high Priest washings c. And if then this be all the use that Baptism succeeds
is also an objection against the principle fore-mentioned All that are in covenant are to have the initial seal or as Mr. C. speaks the initiatory seal followes the Covenant that if the connexion bee between seal and Covenant it is as well besween the after seal as the initial and so they may as well plead for infants comming to the Lords Supper as in Cyprians time and as the young ones of the Jews did partake of the Passeover To this Mr. C. saith Male infants were not to appear at the Passeover if so then they must appear at the Feast of Tabernacles must carry boughes from Deut. 16. â—â— 17. compared with Levit. 23.34 35 38 39 40. that though persons have a covenant right in general yet their jus in re is to be suspended and not elicited in case of incapacity or of extream coldness of the countrey or sickness c. Answ. 1. If infants were not to appear at the Passeover yet young children not to be admitted to the Lords Supper were nor doth the text tie them all to carry boughs who were to appear 2. The objection holds as much concerning the yong ones at Jerusalem who were to eat the Passeover and by Mr. Cs. reasons such yong ones should be at the Lords Supper as having Covenant interest and therefore jus ad rem nor is there any such incapacity or danger to them in eating the Lords Supper to suspend their jus in re as is to be baptized in Greenland or in extreme weakness and sickness and therefore â—y Mr. Cs. reasons they ought not to be denied the Lords Supper 3. If infants Covenant-right to the Lords Supper be suâ—pended because of their defect of understanding to examine themselves their Covenant-right to Baptism is as justly suspâ—nded til they repent and believe which are as much and more required to Baptism as self examination to the Lords Supper And if it be true then Mr. Cs. position is not right that infants ought not to be denied the use and benefit of Baptism 4. If it were in Cyprians time a corruption to give infants the Lords supper so it was to baptize them being on the same reason of no greater anâ—iquity But let 's view what hee saith for the clearer handling of his Thesis Sect. 2. He saith that mixt commands of God having some part circumstantial and vanishing some part substantial and abiding the later is binding to us since Christs time albeit the former be not and he instanceth in a 7th day Sabbath But neither he nor any other have yet proved any such substantial part abiding in the command of Circumcision and how little the instance given iâ— to his purpose is shewed before § 77 80 81. That which Mr. C. saith sect 3. is granted that consequential commandements grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandements but that any command oâ— a positive rite in the old Testament is a command to us about a positive right of the new or that in mere positive worship that should not be excluded which is not expressed is not granted to the contrary somewhat is said in the 2d part of this Review § 2 3 5. and elsewhere I have often said prove infant Baptism by good consequence and I shall yeild That federal ordinances such as are the seals are as well priviledges as precepts which Mr. C. sect 4. asserts when they are rightly admininistred is granted but it is denied that the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper are federal ordinances or seals of the Covenant of grace in Mr. Cs. sense who p. â—31 makes Circumcision in the nature of it to bee a seal of the righteousness of faith and in like manner those otâ—er which he cals federal ordinances seals of the promise of the Covenant of grace of the righteousness of faith in their nature There â—s not a word Acts 7.2 8. by which it may appear that circumcision of the child was reckoned as the Fathers priviledge nor their own circumcision as their priviledge but only of Abrâ—ham that God gâ—ve him the Covenant of Circumcision whereby he was assured of a son by Sarah so he bâ—gate Isaac and circumcised him the 8th day which priviledg was peculiar to Abraham and to none other I know excepâ— Zachary John Baptists father be said â—o have the same priviledge nor is Rom 3.1 2 3 4. any whit to M Cs purpose to prove that circumcision is reckoned as the Fathers priviledge For 1. it is manifest that Rom. 3.1 Circumcision is to be understood metonymically as v. 30. for the circumcised sith it is not sold there was much profit by Circumcision but of Circumcision as before what advantage of the Jew nor was the priviledge vâ— the committing the oracles of God to them the priviledge of Circumcision in the abstract or by circumcision as the means by which it was but the priviledge of that people who were circumcised 2. If it were granted that the priviledge were by Circumcision yet that it was the Fathers priâ—iledge by reason of the childs Circumcision rather then his own is a vain fancy Nor doth Acts 2.38 39. yeild any more to his purpose but is most gâ—osly abused by Mr. C. as is shewed before § 21 23 Nor are the passages which he alledgeth p. 132. out of my Examen dissonant to any passages before or any after except those words of my Examen p. 10â— which I alter in the first part of this Review p. 64 93. And to his many questions from my words I answer that â—e hath not proved the Covenant of grace wherein God promiseth to be a God to them and theirs to bâ—long to every Jew but onely to Abraham and his seed that is so far as it is Evangeliacl onâ—ly to his spiritual seed whether of Jewes or Gentile and therefore I deny it was a priviledge which every Jew had to be a God to them and theirs and yet grant that Deut. 29.14 with â—0 6. was a priviledge and so I yeeld to have been what God promised Ezek 36. from the 17 to the end and Deut. 14.2 and that sundry infants of the Jews bâ—se born wâ—re in the Covenant of saving grace and Church-priviledges and that it was a priviledge to them and that the promises of the Covenant of grace are priviledges and the same now to believers and as large and honourable as then and that the promises to their children mentioned Deut. 30.6 were of the substance of the Covenant of grace in respect of the thing promised but not in respect of the persons to whom for God doth not promise to all his elect or tâ—ue believers that which he promised then in that case to the Israelites for their seed and I yeild that even base born children may bee in the Covenant of saving grace and yet these promises are not made to Church children as Mr. C. speaks â—s such but onely to the elect Nevertheless I grant the same promises now to bee made to believers which were then
that reason which if it were good the consequent is sound nevertheless What hee adds if the external part under the Gospel belong not to infants the Gospel and that made with Abraham are two distinct Covenants and essentially different and that made with Abraham and his seed carnal as the carnal Anabaptists affirm their portion no better then Turks they made as Calvin observs as beasts whereas the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is everlasting is true thus far that the Covenant Gen. 7.17 so farre as it did assure righteousness to Abrahams spiritual seed by faith was the Gospel Covenant the same with ours made in Christ and everlasting but this is nothing to prove that there was such an external part of outward ordinances belonging to infants in that Covenant But that Covenant is mixt Mr. Cr. himself saith there was a promise of Canaan and temporal blessings in it though in the main the Covenant were spiritual and that part belonged to the Israelites by nature onely not to our children at all So that Mr. Crags terms of carnal and gross put upon us and Calvins observation are but reproaches and calumnies by Mr. Cr. and other Paedobaptists devised and used by them wickedly to make us odious but in time their wickedness will return on their own head Sect. 7. Mr. Crs. speeches of infants sad condition without baptism are like the Popish talk of the necessity of baptizing infants that they may enter into Gods kingdome By denying their baptism we deprive them not of Gods Covenant The priviledges Rom. 3.2 9.4 were peculiar to the Jews Did he write with heed he would not say they belong to infants of Gentiles under the Gospel When I say Baptism is not an ordinary meanes of salvation without faith I mean that no ones baptism but the baptism of true believers is an ordinary meanes of salvation which is true though there may be true baptism without true saving faith if it be professed His talk of preaching to infants by presenting objectively the benefit of that which is preached without manifesting to the understanding is another of his wild conceits It 's no contradiction to say infants are not saved by ordinary meanes to wit preaching the word c. and yet to say they are saved by election redemption the work of Gods spirit sith by ordinary means I understand and so do others the Word and Sacraments and Christian discipline It is false he saith of me p. 146. that I confess if I knew infants were elected I would baptize them or that here I acknowledge of the species or sort of believers infants that they are not onely elected of God but redeemed of Christ and have the work of his spirit Sect. 8. the major of his Syllogism That which was proposed and entertained with success amongst the Jews which were the natural seed of Abraham was not onely made with the spiritual seed of Abraham p. 147. is denied he is grossely mistaken in conceiving believing Jews were not Abrahams spiritual seed and his arguing that many of the natural seed of Abraham were believers under the Gospel Rom. 4.11 12. to prove it confirms the contrary For all that are true believers not every professour of faith or elect are Abrahams spiritual seed and this I often expressed plainly and Mr. Cr. knew well enough but says I speak ambiguously that he may have some colour for his random roving talk of persons in visible Covenant being children of the promise and Abrahams seed which is much of it non-sense unproved dictates and quite beside the meaning of the texts Rom. 4.11 12 16. 9.8 which make none Abrahams seed and children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as it was Evangelical but true believers or elect persons as is amply before proved Sect. 28 29. The rest of his scribling in that Section runs on these two mistakes 1. That there is now under the Gospel a national Church as the Jews was and that the expression Ephes. 3.6 may be applied to this whole Nation 2. That there is such an outward visible Covenant which God hath made with such a whole visible National Church which is not proved from Deut. 29 10 12. Joh. 1.11 Psal. 50.5 Joh. 15.2 two of which speak not at all of the Gospel Covenant nor of Gods making a Covenant with them but of theirs with God the 2d is expresly meant onely of true believers the 4th of being a branch in Christ which it's true may be meant of a visible professour but not of being in the Gospel Covenant of grace in which none any where are said to be nor is God said any where to make it to any but true believers or elect persons as is proved Sect. 33. There is not any thing Sect. 9. that I need reply to saving that he grants that the Gospel Covenant of grace Heb. 8.10 11 12. is made onely to the elect if by the Covenant I mean the end event and success thereof which I confess I do and acknowledge that I abhor any conceit to the contrary as if God should make a Covenant to any which should not have the end event and success answerable to his promise and therefore this Covenant promising things which none in the event have but the elect can bee said to be made by God to none but them unless we will charge God with falshood mutability or impotency Sect. 10. That Isa. 49.21.23 is a prophesie of the reducing the Jews from Babylonish captivity is evinced from v. 19 20 21. in that the description of the places wast and desolate the land of their destruction the place which was too strait are meant of the land of Canaan and Mr. Cr. himself thus v. 20. the place is too strait for me that is the Land of Canaan is too narrow to contain the whole Church and he himself expounds after thou hast lost the other v. 20. of the natural seed of Abraham and the being desolate a captive and removing too and fro off Jerusalem But he will have it meant of the time after the destruction by Titus and the dispersion after it for we never find it verified literally that the Land of Canaan was too strait during the time of captivity as the words point to contain the Jews But where do the words point that the Land of Canaan was too strait during the time of captivity to contain the Jewes The words point at the multitude of Jews after the return from the Babylonish captivity at which time according to Zechariah his prophesie ch 8.3 4 5 6 7 8 9. the Jews mightily encreased and prospered and the place desolate confessedly being meant of Canaan and Jerusalem and the Jewes the Captives the sense of v. 22 23. is meant undoubtedly in the first sense of the words of the Jews reduction from captivity which was not true of them after the destruction by Titus therefore of their return from Babylon by Cyrus and other Persian and Grecian Kings and Queens favour The
say they by his promising Abraham temporal things Gen. 17.8 therefore we may not argue from thence to the Covenant of Grace It is true both in my Exercitation and in my Examen Part 3. Sect. 2. and else where I deny the Covenant made with Ahraham Gen. 17. to be a pure Gospel-Covenant and aver it to be mixt and shew how it is mixt to wit of promises not belonging to every one with whom the New Covenant of the Gospel is made but respecting peculiarly Abrahams house and the policy of Israel and that the promises Evangelical are delivered Gen. 17. in words expressing proper benefits to Abraham and his natural seed though in the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost Evangelical promises were meant and therefore it may be well doubted whether that Covenant may be termed simply Evangelical Yea the Scripture where it speaks of this Covenant often mentions no other promise but of the Land of Canaan as Exod. 6.4 Psal. 105.8 9 10 11. 1 Chron. 16.17 18. Act. 7.5 Where Stephen mentions Gods promise to Abraham he mentions that of the land of Canaan and vers 8. calls the promise of Canaan the Covenant of Circumsion Wherefore Cameron in his Thescs of the threefold Covenant of God Thesi. 78. saith That Circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily Whence I inferre that when Paedobaptists speak of Circumcision as if it were a Seal of the Covenant of Grace onely and from it gather Rules and Conclusions concerning the Ordinance of Baptism in the New Testament as if the Reason of Circumcising Infants were from nothing proper to the policy or Nation of Israel but onely out of the respect it had to the promise of Evangelical grace they do but mislead the people and speak their own conceits and not the Language and minde of the Scripture To this Master Drew saith I answer The Scripture no where calls that Covenant a mixt Covenant but on the contrary notwithstanding any civil promises of temporal things it is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 which I think is enough to make it a pure Gospel-Covenant Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace outward things as appurtenances altered not the Covenant nor made it mixt at all unless that Covenant we live under be mixt too for outward things are promised to believers under the Gospel Rom. 8.32 1 Cor. 3.22 23. 1 Tim. 4.8 Besides this Covenant with Abraham is called a Covenant of justification Rom. 4.2 3. of Grace vers 4. of Faith vers 13. and I am perswaded that Abraham had not been called the Father of the Faithful if Believers had stood in a different Covenant towards God with that in which he stood as for differences in the manner of administring and dispensing that Covenant they matter nothing if there be no difference in those Evangelical promises which make it a Covenant of Grace but no man is able to make this appear therefore this exception weakens not our proposition nor the Argument at all I reply if it be true which I allege that the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8 was a mixt Covenant as I shew in the places forecited and that Circumcision injoyned vers 9 10 11 12. had reference as a signe or token not onely to that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed but also to the promises which peculiarly respect the house of Abraham and policy of Israel which cannot be understood to belong to every believer as vers 7. to be the father of many Nations to be exceeding fruitful that God would make Nations of him and Kings should come out of him that he would give unto him and his seed after him the Land wherein he was a stranger all the Land of Canaan for an everlasting possession Then it follows that the reason of the command vers 9 10 11 12. is not onely from the promise vers 7. but those other promises and the application of the first seal are knit into a dependence one upon another as well as that vers 7. and then if the argument be good The Infants of those to whom the promise is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed are to have the first seal because of the dependence there it will follow he to whom God gives the Land of Canaan for a possession he out of whom God brings Nations and Kings he is likewise to be sealed with the first seal sith there is as much dependence in the text of Circumcision on the promises vers 4 5 6 8. as on the promise vers 7. so that if this reasoning of Master Drew's be good for my part I see not but that the Turk possessour now of Canaan may be intitled to Baptism by the same reason he produceth for Infant-baptism of Believers children Now whereas he saith That the Scripture no where calls that Covenant mixt I grant it and it is true also that it no where calls it a pure Gospel-covenant nor Circumcision a seal of the Covenant of Grace or the first seal yet the thing I mean by it being proved out of those texts forenamed there is no reason to except against the expression Nor can it be true that the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be if the promises are of sundry things not assured to Believers in the Covenant of the New Testament Which is most evident for no Believer hath now a promise of the possession of the Land of Canaan but rather an assurance of persecution no promise of such greatness as to be the progenitor of Kings and Nations but rather of obscurity and debasement A pure Gospel Covenant containing many promises is rare in the Old Testament except where he foretells us he would make a new Covenant God made a Covenant with David Psal. 89.3 c. Nor do I deny it was a Gospel-covenant yet therein are promises peculiar to his house as vers 30 31 32 33. yea the promises which were Evangelical in the furthest intent and aim were domestical in the first place and the most open expressions Nor is it a whit against the mixture of Abrahams Covenant which I avouch That the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 And that Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace For the word is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered in Christum by the Tigurines into or unto Christ or as Master Dickson renders it respectu Christi in respect of Christ That is as in his paraphrase with relation to Christ or as Diodati whose foundation was Christ not as the Testator but as the party concerning whom the Testament was made or as the executor by whom
had the Jews understood that their children were in that condition worsted for want of a priviledge equal to their circumcision they would have been glad to accept of Christ to take away that horrour that then lay on their Spirits The third exception is that it is not said the promise is to the Gentiles and their children now if this be not made good the argument fals because we are Gentiles by nature To which he answers 1. If believing Gentils live under the same Covenant that Abraham and his seed did which has been proved then though they were none of his seed t is safer to apply the whole promise to them I am thy God and the God of thy seed then to cut off and circumcise the tenor of the Covenant and to say unto believers now God onely is your God not the God of your children is not this to make a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant and to rob believers of one of the most precious comforts they have by promise even Gods owning their seed Which they cannot be assured of as the Jews were without the children be admitted to the first sign or seal of the Covenant which is baptism now under the Gospel as I shall prove by its succeeding circumcision by and by To which I reply The Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. is mixt and in respect of the temporal promises believing Gentiles live not under the Covenant made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 but in respect of the spiritual part that is they are justified and saved now or God is a God to them as they are Abrahams seed Gal. 3.29 But neither did God promise to be a God in respect of Gospel grace to Abrahams natural seed as such the contrary is delivered Rom. 9.7 8. nor now to any believers seed as such but the elect whether believers or unbelievers children as is proved at large by me Exam. part 3. Sect. 4. not by denying the Covenant of grace to be made with a believer his natural seed do we cut off or circumcise the tenor of the Covenant or make any alteration much less a main and substantial alteration in the Covenant the Apostle expressly determining and whole Juries of the ablest Protestant writers even paedobaptists expounding Rom. 9.8 as resolving that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed was not made to all Abrahams natural seed no not to the circumcised not to Ishmael and Esau but to the elect onely and therefore there is no safety to apply the whole promise I am thy God and the God of thy seed to every sincere believer and his child it being expressly contradictory to Rom. 9.8 which determines some onely to be children of the promise And yet we need not say as M. Drew injuriously makes us say God onely is your God not the God of your children but onely this you may assure your selves that he is your God for ye are believers and so Abrahams seed and ye may hope by reason of general indefinite promises and frequent experiences that God will be a God to your children But God hath not promised that he will be certainly a God to every or any one of your children definitely but is at liberty to shew mercy to your children or to an infidels as it shall please him And this you must be contented with sith God afforded no more to Abraham himself when he had made Isaac the child of the promise and not Ishmael nor to Isaac when he loved Iacob and hated Esau. It is fit you should remember God to be no debtor to you that he is the potter ye and yours are the clay and accordingly acquiess in his will blessing him for his love to you which is the most precious comfort you have by promise and not being anxious concerning your children Nor is there any truth in it that either the Jews were assured that God would own their seed that is be their God nor that by being admitted to circumcision they had that assurance nor that without admission to baptism we cannot be assured of our children that GOD owns them nor that baptism succeeds circumcision or if it did such assurance as Mr. Drew speaks of cannot be inferred thence So that all this passage is but a fardel of mistakes Le ts consider the next 2. saith M. Drew Are not Gentiles the seed of Abraham Then I would fain be resolved in this whether Christ took upon him onely the nature of the Jews or of the Jews and Gentiles both If only of Jews how must the Gentiles be saved If of both then how you will construe this text Heb. 2.16 He took upon him the seed of Abraham if you will not allow the Gentiles by any means to be Abrahams seed Answer I grant believing Gentils are Abrahams spiritual seed descending from him as the Father of the faithfull by imitating his faith And as for M. Drews frivolus or captious question which goes upon a supposition as if Christ might take on him the nature of the Jews only that the nature of the Jews were one and the Gentils another I tell him though I think such a Dr. might have resolved himself for his resolution that Christ took on him the nature of both that is the same specifical essence or kinde of being that both had to wit the being of a man common a like to Jews and Gentiles meaning by nature his individual and numerical Existence which is all one with that our Lord sprang out of Judah Heb. 7.14 not from Levi or from Lot and yet the Gentils are saved by his name he dying and arising again both for Jews and Gentils And for the Construction of Heb. 2.16 thought there are learned men that expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus he takes hold or helpeth the seed of Abraham that is believers of Gentils as well as Jews yet I think the meaning there to be no more but this that he took on him or received the nature of man by a natural descent from Abraham 1. because the seed of Abraham is opposed to Angels and therefore Abrahams seed signifies the nature of man contradistinct to Angels 2. because the author saith ver 17. thence he ought to be like to his brethren to be a mercifull high Priest which comes not from his helping believers but his assumption of the humane nature whith fits him to be like to men and to be a mercifull high Priest And therefore I like best the reading of our transtators in the text not that in margin And thus haye I answered M. Drews douty question in which he would so fain be resolved But what is this to prove that Acts 2.39 the promise is not yet to the Gentils that are called but also to their children I see not it being neither proved that Acts 2.39 the promise is the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and thy seed ot that the children of Gentils called
are in that respect Abrahams seed M. Drew adds But yet further 3. T is plain in the Gospel that faith maketh a believer the child of Abraham yea and a surer heir to the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed then carnal descent from Abrahams Loyns doth Abraham had 2. seeds one descending from Ishmael and onother from Isaac all that came from Abraham were not children Rom. 9.7 But in Isaac shall thy seed be called Isaac was his special seed and typed out his believing seed under the Gospel for ver 8. they which are the children of the flesh these are not that is not in so peculiar a manner the children of God as the believing seed for the children of the promise are the seed the seed by way of eminencie that is the prime seed and Mark I pray you how the same Apostle explaines and applyes this to our purpose Gal. 4.28 29. The Galatians were Gentils but being believers we saith the Apostle as Isaac was are the children of promise and so the special seed of Abraham the Galatians were no more of Abrahams natural seed then we are but by faith they became his prime seed and heirs apparent to all the promises as Isaac was who is said in the next ver to be born after the spirit as well as Gospel believers are And sirs shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abrahams prime seed and halve the promises to them when they are full and large to his worser seed The Appostle will not suffer this Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise which surely must needs be according to the full extent of that promise made unto our Father Abraham for if it be not ours so fully as it was his then we are not heirs according to the promise if our seed be exempted it fals much short of what was said to him I will be thy God and the God of thy seed And mark friends I beseech you that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 In thee shall all Nations be blessed not onely his natural seed that was but one Nation but all that were of the faith shall be blessed as children of what nation soever ver 7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10 11. to this end that he might be the Father of all them that believe though not circumcised And truely I wonder since the Gâ—spel is so clear that believers are Abrahams children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or priviledge wherewithall he was invested by that promise to which they are more sure heirs then any of his natural seed as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities Answer the thing to be proved is that to the natural seed of Gentile believers God hath promised to be a God To prove which divers places are brought which do manifestly refute it That of Ro. 9.7 8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the seed to whom God had promised to be God but that in Isaac his seed should be called And the same is determined Gal. 4.28 that Isaac was the child of the promise and not the son of the bondwoman and that no child of any man is a child of the promise but he that is born after the Spirit And Gal. 3.29 is meant of those onely that are the sons of God by faith in Christ ver 26. and from the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8 in thee shall all nations be blessed he infers ver 9. onely of believers so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 4.10.11 Abraham is said to be the Father of believers or as it is ver 12. those that walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Wherefore I may much more justly wonder that learned Protestants who so commonly say that elect persons onely are in the Covenant of grace from Rom. 9.7 8. when they dispute against Arminians should yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profession a believers natural child whether elect or a believer or not is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 when they dispute for paedobaptism though by such doctrine they make the word of God to fall it being not true of Ishmael Esau and thousands of others of both of Abrahams and other believers seed God hath not nor will be a God to them T is true believing Gentils are heirs of the promise made to Abraham of blessing or justification by faith as he had but it is false every believer is heir of every priviledg Abraham had none besides him is Father of the faithfull as Abraham or hath Gods promise to his natural seed as Abraham had to his spiritual yea or to his natural None hath the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed Acts 3.25 nor any that his posterity should be graffed in again as it is assured to Abrahams seed Rom. 11.28 29. The imagined priviledge that God would be the God of his naturall seed was never promised to Abrahams natural posterity as such Yet it is false that a believers child is a more sure heir of the promise then any of Abrahams natural seed For though God hath not promised to be a God to all Abrahams posterity yet he hath to some which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentils natural child M. D. doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the promise robbed believing parents of any comfort or privilege wherewith Abraham was invested by that promise Gen. 17.7 perverting the text as if when God said he would be a God to Abraham by Abraham were meant every believer and when he saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed it were meant of every belivers natural seed whether believers or not About which he and other paedobaptists particularly the Assembly at Westminster in the Directory about baptism do but abuse people and lead fond parents who swallow down Preachers sayings without Scripture proof into a fools paradise by telling them that the promise is made to a believer and his seed that God will be a God to a believer and his child and that Infants of believers dying in their Infancy are saved by the parents faith and by this there is assurance of their salvation But Master Drew once more urgheth Rom. 11 17. that the term graffing shews believing Gentils come in with their seed or twigs that grow from them else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off But I have so fully proved the ingraffing to be by giving faith according to election and that none but elect persons are ingraffed according to the Apostles meaning and that ingraffing is into the invisible Church in my Ample disquisition being the first part of
intolerable presumption but a certain truth in them that assert that infant-baptism is not so ancient as is pretended as now taught is a late innovation In his fifth Arg. he undertakes to shew Infants have great profit by Baptism but either asserts a meer Title or a Profit which they have not by their Baptism or that which they may have without it It is not true that there is the like profit to infants by baptism as by circumcision for the one is appointed and not the other and there is no penalty for omitting infant-baptism as for neglecting infant-circumcision nor any promise or privilege assigned to infant-baptism as to infant-circumcision SECT XI The Agreements between Circumcision and Baptism do not justifie Infant-baptism and the validity of sealing Infants with an initial seal now is shewed to be null HIs sixth and last Argument runs thus The promise was sealed by the initial Sacrament aforetime to infants of visible Professors seeking it for them both Jews and Gentile therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament The Antecedent he proves not it is in effect no more than the infants of Jews and Proselytes were circumcised onely Mr. Church useth the affected Phraseology of Paedobaptists to call that sealing the Promise by the initial Sacrament which is no more than circumcision which it is false did seal or assure to every circumcised person the Promise of propriety in God or any other Promise made in the covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. And he says It was sealed to infants of visible Professors intimating it was done to them by reason of their Profession and not to others whereas the infants of any in his house whether born in Abrahams house or bought with his money who were not of his seed but a strangers children were by command to be circumcised He puts in his conclusion our Baptism for sealing by the initial Sacrament But to let pass these stale Paralogisms he takes on him to prove the consequence by six Arguments The first is The principal Promise is not made void He means that Gen. 17.7 but gives no reason why that should be the principal Promise and not that v. 4. But I grant that Promise Gen. 17.7 meant of Abrahams seed by faith is not made void He thence concludes Therefore it may be sealed to the infants of Christians by the initial Sacrament in this dispensation which is not a proof of the consequence but of the conclusion of the former Argument nor is there any force in this inference for though the Promise were still in force as then yet it is not a sufficient reason to baptize an infant the command being not to baptize persons in covenant but disciples of Christ. In his second he tells us Sealing that Promise by an initial Sacrament to infants of Gods people which was the substance of circumcision and a distinct thing from it did not of right cease with the Jewish church-state for it was not peculiar to that church as a national church for that Promise was sealed to infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation Gen. 27.2 Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholik church For shews of grace are sufficient to it thoughâ— the parties have not joyned themselves to any particulor church Acts 18.36 37. and 10 47. and one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the catholick church cannot have the promise sealed to him by an initial Sacrament though he be a member of a particular church Answer That which Mr. church saith sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people was the substance of circumcision and a distinct thing from it is many waies faulty in respect of falsehood and obscurity For 1. the substance of circumcision as a type or shadow is Christ exhibited as the Apostle Col. 3.7 not the promise of God to every Infant of a believer by profession 2. as circumcision was asign or taken of the covenant made with Abraham and it is true the promise Gen. 17.7 was the thing signified by it but not onely that part I will be the God of thy seed but also the other I will be thy God yea and all the rest of the promises as ver 4. thou shalt be a father of many nations fruitfulness descent of Kings ver 6. inheritance of Canaan ver 8. yet how the promises or the sealing of them should be the substance of circumcision I do not understand Circumcision was a ceremony consisting of an action and a relation Circumcision as an action hath no other substance or essence but the cutting off the little skin as a relation the signifying or sealing is the very relation but it is a trifling speech to say paternity is the substance of paternity if the promises sealed be meant to be the substance yet no Logicians I know so speak to call the object of sight the substance of sight the thing signified the substance of the sign Faith is Heb. 11.1 said to be the substance of things hoped for but there the act is said to be the substance of the object not the object the substance of the act so the covenant should not be the substance of circumcision but circumcision the substance of the covenant 3. It is more unintelligible to me how sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament to Infants of Gods people was the substance of circumcision and yet a distinct thing For first if he mean that it was the substance of circumcision as a relation that is the essence of it in which sense only I know how to understand his speech then sure it was the very same and no distinct thing the essence being not a distinct thing from the essentiate the thing defined and definition are not two distinct things though the notion be formally distinct if he mean that sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament should be the Genus to circumcision yet so it should not be a distinct thing the Genus and species are not distinct really but formally Quae formaliter distinguunter non habent se ut res et res Kick. â—ist log lib. 1. part 2. cap 5. nor was there any other sealing that promise by an initial Sacrament then by circumcision and therefore no real distinction all the distinction was meerly notional or verbal circumcision being one word and sealing with the initial seal at that time another yet both expressing the same thing If any imagine a sealing with an initial seal then that was not circumcision let him shew what it is and were commanded Mr. Church himself pag. 41. calls circumcision the initial Sacrament aforetime 2. Sealing the promise by an initial Sacramment is said to be the substance of circumcision yet pag. 41. he saith it was a distinct thing from sealing the promise and only a ceremony for that time
the person baptized repents of his sins and renounceth specially his Gentile defilements communion with Satan and engageth himself to be Christs disciple Yet I deny not but that by consequent in the manner of doing it by dipping or plunging under water it minds us of Christs death burial and rising again and testifyeth our salvation by him and so in a remote manner assures to us the benefits of the Covenant of grace But in this manner it is the administration of election as well as the Covenant and is an administration of the Covenant only to elect persons and true believers for it assures salvation onely to them not to all that are baptized and therefore in this respect none but they can have title to it So that if from hence that baptism is the administration of the Covenant a title be derived for infants to be baptized it can intitle none but those to whom it administers the Covenant which are only the elect or true believers But the ambiguity of the expression is much more fallacious For 1. when it is said it is appointed for the administration of the Covenant the expressions sometimes are as if it were the administration it self calling it the new administration as I shew in my Apology sect 10. Mr. Geree here p. 10. baptism is a seal of a new administration and then it is all one as to say the administration of the Covenant is appointed for the administration of the Covenant which is either non-sense or at least inâ—ptly spoken 2. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the outward or inward Covenant The latter I presume they will not say for then baptism should be an administration of the things promised therin regenerarion remission of sins and if so then it administers them in a natural way and so it should in manner of a natural agent regenerate c. which is to confer grace ex opere operato or in a moral way but baptism can administer regeneration remission of sins c. no other moral way but by assuring or perswading or the like what ever way it be conceived it administers not the covenant to an infant in infancy nor to any but the elect now if it do not administer the covenant to any but such then it is not baptism but to such if baptism be in its nature the administration of the Covenant of Grace If they mean baptism is the administration of the outward covenant I am yet to learn what the outward covenant is except they mean the outward administration which is no other then baptism as I shew Apology s. 10. and what is this then but to say that baptism is the administration or appointed for the administration of baptism 3. When they say it is the administration of the Covenant do they mean the Covenant or promise of the baptized to God or Gods promise to the baptized If the former then it is no more but this that baptism is the administration that is the signification of the baptized his engagement to be Christs disciple which is indeed the best sense of it but then it will not fit them for so it is not in infants for they signifie no profession or engagement of theirs by it If the later then by baptism God doth promise man but that 's not true his promise is in the Word before baptism or he signifies his promise formerly made this can derive no title to the persons to whom the promise is made for the signifying that promise as past is as useful for others either baptized or unbaptized as the then baptized and not at all of use or avail to infants who cannot apprehend the signification or he assures the benefits of the Covenant and that can be only to elect or true believers or that he contains them by it and so it gives grace ex opere operato 4. The Covenant of grace is I take it the Covenant of saving grace opposite to the Covenant of works the promise of justification by faith in contradistinction to the Law Gal 3.18 This covenant was made mixtly Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. purely Heb. 8.10 11 12. They should tell us whether they mean the one or the other or both The former they seem to mean when they make baptism to succeed Circumcision and to seal the same Covenant that it did But then baptism should not be the new administration but belong to the old And if it seal that Covenant then it assures the Land of Canaan and greatness in it But it seems they mean that it seals only the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed so Mr. Geree here we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed But if so 1. Then it seals only a part of the Covenant that circumcision did and so succeeds not in it's use nor is there a reason given but their own conceit why it should seal one part and not another 2. If it seal or administer the Gospel-covenant then it administers not this promise that God will be a God to a believer and his natural seed as such For that is neither Gospel nor at all to be found Gen. 17.7 3. In that promise was foretold Christ to come of Abraham and this was Gospel Gal. 3.16 But this is not administred by baptism which signifies Christ already come 4. In the spiritual sense it was made to Abrahams seed by faith Gal. 3.29 Rom. 4.11 12. But they are only the elect Rom. 9.7 8. and then it is an administration of that Gospel covenant onely to elect persons and true Believers 5. There 's ambiguity also in the term the Gospel covenant is extended The Gospel covenant is The just shall live by faith that God will be a God to Abrahams seed by faith But Mr. Geree imagines a Gospel covenant which is but a fiction that God hath promised to be a God to the natural posterity of every believing Gentile 6. For the extent of it how it is extended is ambiguous For he cannot say it is extended in respect of the Gospel promise of righteousness and life to all the children of believers it was not extended Ishmael to and Esau. Therefore he acknowledgeth it to be extended in the reality of it onely to the Elect onely it is to be charitably presumed that they are elect and therefore they are to be taken for persons in covenant till they discover the contrary But he shews no rule of Scripture for such a Construction of the promise sure such a construction was unknown to Paul Rom. 9.6 7 8. when he expounded that very promise Gen. 17.7 nor doth such a construction agree with the words sith when God saith I will be a God to thee and thy seed the meaning according to M. Geree should then be I will be a God to thee that is every believer and to thy seed that is every believers natural seed which are
elect in reality and to those that are not elect in charitable presumption of the Minister of baptism till comming to years they discover the contrary now what a non-sence exposition is this to expound thee meant of Abraham by every believing Gentile and by thy seed which is meant of Abrahams seed onely either natural or spiritual by faith to understand every believers natural seed and when it is said God will be a God to them that he will be a God only to some in reality which is to make God to promise what he doth not perform and to others that men shall think he will be a God to them which would be too poor a matter to be meant in that expression and therein God should not promise what he will be or do but what men shall think which would be false for it is not made good or that they may charitably so presume of them but in this sense it is not a promise at all but a meer permission to men to think charitably of them which I suppose they are as well bound to do of unbelievers children till they discover the contrary and so no privilege to the believers children And yet this too must be limitted to a certain time till they come to years and discover the contrary and therefore by seed must be understood onely the infant-seed when they came to years there 's neither promise nor permission for men to think so charitably of them And yet herein there is nothing but abuse of terms For charitable presumption must have some ground which is to be from some thing we perceive done to judge well of what we see not according to the rule 1 Cor. 13.7 Charity believeth all things but in infants acts there 's nothing that may be such a ground but to the contrary they opposing their baptism by their crying c. If it be said the promise is a ground I answer Mr. Geree confesseth the promise is not in reality but to the elect nor to the elect till they believe and therefore there is no ground from the promise till it be known the persons be elect or believers But it will be said we know nothing to the contrary To which I reply nor do we know any thing to the contrary but that unbelieving Jews children are elect and in the Covenant and yet it s not charitably presumed of them so as to count them in the Covenant and to judge them admissible to baptism I think sith we perceive nothing of believers infants acts that may distinguish them from unbelievers that we should rather suspend our thoughts of Gods election and covenant to them till they shew of what spirit they are which is meet for an administrator of baptism who as a wise Steward should give to every one his portion in due season Luke 12.42 rather then have such a fond imagination of what God hath concealed And if it be true which Mr. Geree saith in his Vindic. Vindic. p. 42. That many of the Assembly intended the words in the Directory for baptism The promise is made to believers and their seed in Master Gerees sense they have reason to be ashamed that they have so much abused the World with such a toy Yea but have they not a promise on which to ground this charitable presumption I answer surely the Jews have a more express promise Ro. 11.26 27. for their posterity then any believer now living hath for his children and therefore if that be all the ground of baptizing believers infants there 's a like ground for baptizing Jews infants though parents be unbelieving and they have wrong that it is not done where it may But shall we make no difference between the children of believers and unbelievers I answer we are to conceive with a judgement of probability for the present that they are elect and with a quieting hope for the future that they will be believers 1. Because of Gods general indefinite promises 2. Because by reason of the means of the knowledge of the Gospel which they have in their education and living where the Gospel is taught they are in a nearer possibility then others to be believers 3. Because experience shews that God often doth continue godliness in religious families though it often fall out otherwise But that such an extension of the Gospel-covenant as Mr. Geree makes to the children of believing Christians should entitle to baptism is without all rule And to his Syllogism though it might be denied in respect of the form by reason of the ambiguity of terms yet I answer by denying the Major in his sense which I conceive is this They to whom the Gospel Covenant is extended according to the charitable presumption of the Minister without the persons shewing by any act that he is in Covenant to them the Sacrament of initiation to wit baptism doth belong and shall examine his proof both of Major and Minor The Major saith he I prove by that of Peter Acts 10.47 when they had received the Holy Ghost which was but an evidence of Gods receiving them into the Gospel covenant Peter saith can any forbid water that these should not be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we They have the word or promise which is the greater who can inhibite the sign which is the less To this I answer the proof rests on this That the allegation of Peter that they had received the Holy Ghost was brought for an evidence that God had received them into the Gospel Covenant and so it may be said to the same purpose who can forbid water that these should not be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we But this is false For their receiving the Holy Ghost is brought not to prove only that God had made his covenant of grace to them but to prove that they were actual believers as their works did shew upon hearing the word of faith for saith he v. 46. they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God ch 11.17 if God hath given them the like gift as unto us that believe on the Lord Jâ—sus Christ who was I that I could forbid God And v. 18. it is said when they heard these things they held their peace and glorifyed God saying then hath God also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life Whence it appears that they were penitent believers and this is proved by their acts and therefore to be admitted to baptism and not barely because the Gospel covenant was extended to them much less because the Gospel covenant was extended to some of that sort and to those particular persons onely upon a charitable presumption that Gods promise did belong to them for the future without any shew of repentance or faith at the present It is false that we may say that when by any other principle in Scripture any are demonstrated to be in the Gospel covenant who can forbid water that these should not
be baptized who are in covenant with God as well as we For though God should reveal that this or that person were elect and that his Covenant did belong to him for the future yet he were not to be baptized till God revealed that he were a believer or disciple For if so than if God did reveal concerning any as he did of Isaac and Jacob that he were a child of the promise though yet unborn in the Mothers womb he were to be baptized which is absurd None are to be baptized afore born therefore any principle whatsoever in Scripture demonstrating a person to be in the Gospel covenant is not sufficient to intitle to baptism much less such an uncertain doubtful guess called charitable presumption that he is in the Covenant as is without any particular declaration of Scripture or other revelation from God concerning the person or any shew of his that he is Gods child which yet Mr Geree makes a sufficient warrant to baptize nor is his reason of any force for we might in like manner say They have the election of God which is the greater who can inhibit the sign which is the less It is not whether that which they have is greater much less that which is conjectured or hoped they have which is the rule to baptize but the manifest having of that qualification of faith or discipleship which is prerequired to baptism according to the institution and primitive practice of it But Mr. Geree hath more to prove his Major Besides saith he we find in the administration of the Gospel covenant to Abraham and his seed whom God had thereby separated then to be his church and evidenced it by an outward seal there was so near a relation between the Covenant and Circumcision the Sacrament of initiation whereby men were externally separated from the world that circumcision was called the covenant and the token of the Covenant Gen. 17.10 11. to shew us how the seal did follow the Covenant and therefore when any were aggregated into the Jewish Church and taken into the Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision To which I answer letting pass his Phraseology this reason goes upon these suppositions 1. That by Circumcision God had administred his Covenant to Abraham and his seed and separated them to be his Church and evidenced it by Circumcision and that the seal did follow the Covenant when any were taken into Covenant they were circumcised and therefore it must be so in baptism But if he mean that to as many as God appointed to be circumcised he administred the covenant of grace which sense alone serves his turn it is not true Ishmael was circumcised yet the Covenant not administred to him nor he separated to be of his Church not this evidenced by an outward seal but the contrary declared concerning him afore his Circumcision Gen. 17.18 19 20 21. and he in the event cast out and so the seal did not follow so the Covenant but that it was imparted to them to whom the Covenant was not made and not imparted to them to whom it did belong as v. g to the females nor were the Prosâ—lytes all taken into Communion of the Covenant made with Abraham though they were taken into the Communion of the policy of Israel nor 〈◊〉 the calling circumcision the covenant or a token of the Covenant which are all one Gen. 17.10 11. prove that all that were circumcised had the Covenant made to them but this that Circumcision was a memorial that such a covenant was made with Abraham and God would perform it 2. That it must be in baptism as it was in circumcision But for proof of that there 's not a word brought by Mr. G. and what others bring is examined in its place M. G. goes on thus Now for your exceptions against the connexion which we put between the Gospel-covenant and the Sacrament of initiation annext to it in any administration they will cleerly be wiped away for what though as you say the Covenant made with Abraham were not a pure Gospel covenant but had some external additaments yet a Gospel covenant it was and for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 The Gospel was preached before to Abraham and as circumcision was the seal of initiation under that administration so is baptism under the Christian administration neither is the Gospel covenant now so pure as to exclude all temporal promises For godliness even under the Gosspel hath the promises of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 Answ. The distinction of a pure and a mixt covenant was brought in by me to shew that Paedobaptists do but mislead people when in their writings and sermons they express themselves as if they would have men conceive that the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. is all one with the Covenant of grace and so that there is the same reason of baptizing infants because of the Gospel covenant as there was of circumcising infants because of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Now how doth Mr. Geree wipe this away He tells his Reader That I say the covenant made with Abraham was not a pure Gospel Covenant but had some external additaments But neither do I so speak in my Exercit. pag. 2. nor Exam. part 3. s. 2. nor any where else I know I say the promises were mixt Exercit. pag. 2. Exam. part 3. s. 2. now promises are not external additaments to the covenant but integral parts the covenant being nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises yea I prove that the peculiar promise to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting of the Land of Canaan c. is frequently called by the name of the Covenant Psal. 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 c. And for what he saith That the covenant made with Abraham was a Gospel covenant this is true according to the more infolded and hidden sense of the spirit but not according to the outward face and obvious construction of the words which in the first meaning spake of things proper to Abrahams natural posterity though the Holy Ghost had a further aim in those expressions And whereas he saith The covenant made with Abraham was for substance the same with ours Gal. 3.8 Though that promise mentioned Gal. 3.8 be no in the Covenant Gen. 17. to which Circumcision was annexed but that Gent 12.3 and the term substance be ambiguous yet I grant the Covenant made with Abraham according to those Gospel promises which in the hidden meaning declared justification by faith as the new covenant sealed with Christs blood doth is the same in substance meaning by it the intent purport and meaning of the Holy Ghost though not in words or expressions yet I deny that it was every way or in every respect in substance the same For the promise according to that sense in which they contain domestique or civil
promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity were of the substance of the covenant and for the confirming of them circumcision was instituted of God as well as for them in priority of order before the assuring of those Evangelical benefits And for what Mr. Geree saith That the Gospel is not so pure now as to exclude all temporal promises it is true yet the Gospel doth not promise as the Covenanâ— Gen. 17. the inheritance of the land of Canaan with rest plenty prosperity and greatness therein but on the contrary such temporal blessings as are with persecution Mark 10.30 and do rather consist in inward comfort and content than in outward enjoyment of any earthly commodity which proves that the Gospel promise for temporal things is clean different from that made to Abraham Gen. 17. concerning temporal benefits to his posterity Mr. Geree addes Neither are the differences mentioned by you page 4. of your Exercit. or elsewhere to be between Circumcision and baptism any whit material to put a difference between the parties to be sealed by them in reference to our present controversy sith notwithstanding these differences they agree in this main general That the one was the Sacrament of initiation to all that were to be sealed under one administration of the covenant the other in the other which is enough to my purpose To which I say the disparities between circumcision and baptism are brought by me to invalidate the argument made by Paedobaptists to prove the succession of the one into the place room and use of the other from the parities between them which allegation to that end is made good before against Mr. Church sect 11. Those differences which I allege Exercit. p. 4. tend to demonstrate that there is not the same reason of circumcision and baptism in signing the Evangelical covenant nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like administring of the other which differences are very material to that end the different end and use of a thing being the most apt reason for altering the application of it As Mr. Rutherford Divine right of Church Government ch 6. q. 2. page 276 277 278. answering Eraâ—tus saith of the Sea Cloud Mannah Water because they had a mixt use they were appointed to all yet it follows not now the Sacrament of the Lords Supper must be given to wicked men So by the very same reason sith circumcision had a mixt use to signify political as well as Evangelical promises to confirm the promise of Christ to come and did belong to the Church not oecumenical but oeconomical or national which baptism did not therefore circumcision might belong to infants and yet not baptism And letting pass his phrase of administration of the Covenant of which is enough said before though the agreement which he calls The main general be yielded him that they are both sacraments of initiation yet unless the same special rule of command or example primitive be brought for the one as the other infant-baptism cannot be proved from infant-circumcision Mr. Geree further tells me But you add further p. 4. of your Exercit. that some were circumcised to whom no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong as Ishmael of whom God had said his Covenant was not to be established with him I answer it is said indeed Gen. 17.21 my Covenant will I establish with Isaac But by covenant there is not meant that covenant which we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the covenant of special prerogative that Christ should come of and the Church should remain in his posterity Therefore notwithstanding that exception Ishmael when circumcised might be and was a member of the visible Church in Abrahams family and in regard of his person within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham and so in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but under it This I might confirm by the opinion of some Hebrew Doctors wherein they are followed by many that the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18 was not onely for natural but for spiritual blessings and what he begged God granted v. 20. But I clear it thus God establisht his Covenant with Abraham and Isaac not with Melchisedeck nor Lot shall we therefore expunge them out of the Covenant of grace how absurd were that we only see their posterity enjoied not that privilege which God vouchsafed Abraham in Isaac and his seed And therefore no more can be truly or rationally gathered from that place of Genesi touching Ishmael Answ. That which in my Exercit. page 4. I gathered from the instances of Ishmael Esau the strangers and others of Abrahams house their circumcision and the non-circumcision of females males under eight daies old Melchisedeck Lot Job the non-admission to baptism of circumcised Jews in covenant till they professed repentance and faith in Christ were That the right to Evangelical promises was not the adequate reason of circumcising these or those but Gods precept as is exprest Gen. 17.23 Gen. 21.4 2. That those terms are not convertible federate and to be signed which overthrows the chief Hypotheses upon which the Paedobaptists argument from infant-circumcision for infant-baptism rests For they all conclude thus The reason why infants were circumcised was that they were in covenant therefore by like reason infants being in covenant should be baptized Now if the reason of infants being circumcised were not their being in covenant but only the command then there is not a like reason for infant-baptism though they were in the Covenant unless there were the like command Now let us see what Mr. Geree saith to my first iâ—stance of Ishmael I alleged that Ishmael was circumcised though no promise in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong to him and that Abraham knew therefore the reason of his circumcision and the same is the reason of others was not his being in covenant but only Gods command to Abraham The antecedent is proved from the words Gen. 17.21 which are exclusive And besides I alleged Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. Gal. 4.29 30. where expresly Ishmael is denied to be a child of the promise or to be born after the promise And I might have added Heb. 11.9 where Isaac and Jacob are distinguishingly reckoned as heirs of the same promise with Abraham not Ishmael and Esau. Now what saith Mr. Geree to this He â—aith The Covenant there is not meant that Covenant which we stand in to God in regard of our persons for our own personal benefit but the Covenant of special prerogative to Isaac that Christ should come of and the Church should remain in his posterity But this is false 1. For it was that covenant that made Isaac heir of the promise which the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8 9. reckons as much as to be an elect person it was the same covenant which was mentioned v. 2 4 5 6 7
outward and reputative adoption though not saving graces belongs to all Besides what ground hath Mr. G. to call this promise the Gospel-covenant Rom. 1.16 17. Gal. 3.8 9 c. the Gospel-covenant is The just shall live by faith it is that which contains promise of sanctification remission of sins c. Hebrews 8 10 11 12. 10.16 17. Matthew 26.28 The everlasting covenant that hath the sure mercies of David Isaiah 55.3 Acts 13.34 38 39. Hebrews 13.20 and of which Jesus is the Surety or Mediator Hebrews 7.22 12.24 what a mockage then is this of people to tell them the Covenant of grace is made to their children and the Cospel-covenant is extended to them and that God hath promised to be their God and that they are confederate with their parents and yet in fine all that they dare assert is God hath promised to the seed of believers an external reputative adoption though not real such chaff they catch their auditors with But is this promise that God will settle his Church in Abrahams family and separate them from the rest of the World as light from darkness as Mr. G. expresly makes it indeed the Gospel-Covenant I dare freely say it is Jewish Anti-evangelical directly opposite to the Gospel-covenant For the Gospel-covenant is That God would bless all Nations in Abraham through faith Gal. 3.8 9. Gentiles as well as Jews yea the Gentile-believers instead of the Jews broken off by unbelief If then this be the Gospel covenant I will be the God of thy seed that is in Mr. Gs. sense I will separate Abrahams family from the rest of the world to be my Church then the Church under the Gospel covenant is not Catholick contrary to the article of the Creed and so the Gospel-covenant continues the middle wall of partition But perhaps Master Geree helps the matter in that which followeth For the second thing saith he the extent of this privilege though there were something in it peculiar to Abraham yet was it not limitted to him alone but those that were of Abraham inherited his promise to have God their God and the God of their seed As what was said to Joshua Josh. 1.5 I will not leave thee nor forsake thee was not bounded to his person but applicable to all conscientious Israelites yea to all Christians in Gods way and work as the Apostle applieth it Heb. 13.5 So this privilege or the Covenant to have God the God of their seed is to be applyed to all Israelites yea to all of any nation that have his faith and tread in his steps they that do the work of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the Covenant Answ. Mr. G. Will have the promise I will be a God to thy seed to promise the settling of the Church in Abrahams family separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness if this be so how can it be a promise to another nation that their children should be adopted outwardly and reputatively For if by this promise Abrahams natural posterity have a privilege whereby they are sethis promise is common to other nations with them But saith he The promise parated from all other nations surely it s no better than a contradiction to say to Joshua Iosh. 1.5 was not bounded to his person Heb. 13.5 which I grant nor do I doubt but promises made to Abraham David Joshua c do belong to all true believers where the holy Ghost doth so expound them and where the promise is of a thing which other Scriptures do clear to belong to them But there is no such thing in the promise of Gen. 17.7 Master Geree brings nothing but his own assertion to prove it nor do I know any thing brought by any else but what the Author of the little book intitled Infants baptism proved lawful by Scripture printed Anno 1644. hath Who thus argued That which was promised to Abraham as a believer is promised to every believer But God promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed as a believer Ergo To which I answered if as be taken reduplicatively so as that the meaning be under that formal consideration to him being a believer and to every one being a believer as to him I deny the Major it was not made to him as a believer simply under that consideration but though it were made upon his faith as a motive of making that covenant with him yet not under that formal consideration simply as a believer so as that the covenant should be said to be made to every believer as to him As in like manner though Peter Matthew 16 18 19 had the promise of building the Church and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and of binding and loosing conferred on him by reason of his confession of Christ verse 16 yet every one that confesseth Christ as he did hath not that that promise If any ask how it was made to Abraham I answer so far as concerns the spiritual part it is cleer from Romans 4 11 12 16 18 that it was made to him as Father of believers and in that construction though it belong to Gentiles yet it belongs onely to believing elect Gentiles Romans 9 7 8 Galatians 3 29 or to Christ whether personal or mystical verse 16. But that it belongs not in that sense no not to all or any either of Jews or Gentiles who are not elect is apparent from Romans 9 7 8 no meer formal professor can lay claim to it As for the promise of outward privileges as to be of the visible Church to have the Ordinances of Gods worship so the promise is made to Abraham as a natural Father of his inheriting posterity by Isaac and to that seed by Isaac which was to inherit in Abrahams family and to that natural seed which God would bring out of Egypt and settle in Canaan and this was but unto the time of reformation as it is termed Heb. chap. 9. vers 10. Now that those words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed should be expounded thus I will be the God of every Gentile believer either in profession or reality that his natural posterity should be Gods visible Church or visible Church-members hath not the least intimation in Scripture but much against it nor can be brought by any shew of right construction to be the meaning For I would know under which term of these thee or thy seed every such natural childe even an infant shauld be meant under thy seed they must say but the Scripture placeth believers themselves and those only reall believers under that term as is proved before and other places speak to like purpose John 8.39 Matth. 3.9 Luke 19.9 therefore without addition to the text believers natural seed are not there placed Nor were the promise true in Mr. Gerees sense For God doth not make good the promise in that sense to every believer and his
natural seed many Gentile believers have had their children persecutors not visible Church-members and may have still yea in that sense which Mr. Geree himself expounds it it was only verified of the natural posterity of Abraham yet not of every particular child of his but of the nation till Christs comming As for the dictate of Mr. G. they that do the works of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the covenant it intimates some promises of the covenant to be essential some not some ordinary some extraordinary parts of the covenant But these are new distinctions with which I meet not elsewhere nor know I how to understand what promises he makes ordinary nor what extraordinary what essential parts of the covenant what not That Covenant being but once made in my conceit therefore had all the promises of the same sort whether ordinary or extraordinary and a covenant being an aggregate of promises contains the promises as the matter and the making together as the form which are the essential parts of the Covenant there 's no promise but being the matter of the covenant is an essential part or rather all the promises together are the matter and each promise is an integral part of the whole number of promises And therfore his speech is not easie to be understood I grant that they who are of the faith of Abraham may claim the promise of Justification and other saving blessings But for visible Church-membership of natural posterity or other domestique promises made to Abraham neither the natural posterity of Abraham nor the truest believing Gentile can lay a just claim to them but that notwithstanding that promise God is free to make their children or the children of Gentile or Jew Infidels his people his visible church and to settle his worship with them Mr. Geree writes thus and that this privilege of having God to be the God of our seed was not personal and peculiar to Abraham but propagated to his seed may hence appear because the same in effect is promised to other godly Jews which is here promised to Abraham Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Answ. The promise to Abraham according to Mr. Gs. exposition was That he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privilege of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Sure this is not the same in effect with that Deut. 30.6 which is nothing of external privileges of a Church but of circumcising their hearts and the heart of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they might live which can be true only of the elect Besides it is promised to them at their return from captivity and upon their returning to the Lord and obeying his voice according to all that he commanded them that day they and their children with all their heart and all their soul v. 2. which sure cannot be ordinarily applied to them in their infancy and therefore this text is very impertinently alleged to prove an external privilege to infants of meer reputed believers even in their infancy Mr. Baxter himself in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. hath these words The text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant-state but in their adult Deut. 30. For first verse 2. the condition of the promise is expresly required not only of the parent but of the children themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the same acts which are required of the parents viz. to return to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of the heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the act ver 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God so that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving Mr. G. yet adds And thus much that place Act. 2.39 doth hold forth and contribute to infant-baptism to shew that children are comprehended in the Covenant with their fathers and both these last promises being of Evangelical privileges they must needs be communicable to all under the Gospel-covenant so then it remains that God still is in covenant with every believer and his seed Answ. That Acts 2.39 neither shews that children of believers are comprehended universally and necessarily with their parents nor contributes ought to infant-baptism is shewed in the forepart of this Review s. 5. and notwithstanding any thing said by Mr. Geree it yet remains to be proved that God is in Covenant with every believer and his seed The rest of that section of Mr. Geree is about my expounding Mr. Ms. second conclusion which I shall review as far as is meet when I come to it I have dispatched at last the answering those that argue syllogistically from the covenant and seal for infant-baptism But most go another way by laying down conclusions and framing hypotheses and I proceed to take a view of their writings SECT XVII Mr. Cottons The Assemblies and London Ministers way of arguing for Infant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the methode of the future progress in the Review expressed MR. John Cotton in his Dialogue ch 3. goes this way and expresseth himself in four things That 1. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 2. Gave him a commandment to receive the sign of circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace to him and his seed Gen. â—7 9 10. 3. The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed now to believers and our seed 4. And hath given us baptism in the room of circumcision The Assembly at Westminster in their confession of faith chap 25. art 2. assert That the visible Church consists of all the children of those that profess the true Religion and cite to prove it 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Ezekiel 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 and 17.7 of these one of the Texts to wit Gen. 3.15 I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant-baptism to my remembrance except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditional covenant made with all Adams posterity I do not imagine what use that Text is of to prove infants of those that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members Whether the seed of the woman be meant of all men or by excellency of Christ or of true believers which are all the senses I conceive yet how from any of these should be gathered that infants of professours of the true Religion as such and not as of humane kinde should be meant by the seed of the woman or that the bruising of the
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
externally in covenant and Church-estate also as being yet in the Olive and Kingdom of God and not cast out untill their unbelief or total and final rejection of the covenant as ratified in Jesus as that promised Messiah Rom. 11.20 to which the Jewes had not as yet come Ans. A Church of the Gospel is such a company as avoucheth the Gospel the Gospel was that Jesus was the Christ to the being in the Church of the Gospel it is not sufficient that there hath not been a total or final rejection of the covenant but it is necessary there be an explicit believing and owning of Christ John 8.24 To be a people so cast off as to have the offer of grace taken from them presupposeth such a rejection Acts 13.46 Mat. 21.43 But to be a Gospel-Church or member of a Gospel-Church requires more then a non-rejection to wit an express avouching of the Gospel Non-rejection doth not make a Gospel-Church or Church-member if it did the salvage Americans that never heard of the Gospel and so have not rejected it should be a Gospel-Church and Church-members Yet that Jewish Church of which the Jewes Acts 2.37 were of and those Jewes themselves had rejected Christ with much violence John 9.22 Acts 3.13 14 15. and therefore they could have no covenant or Church-right no not externally quoad homines from their standing in that Church by which they might have claimed admission into the Christian Church by baptism without repentance and faith in Christ no not though they were supposed to have been without any scandalous sin deserving excommunication or suspense from the seal But Master Cobbet is bold to avouch that this Church was a Gospel-Church visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the subject of the Gospel and the same essentially with that Gospel or Christian Church which to me is such a paradox as is by no means to be received For then that Church should be a Gospel-Church which did obstinately adhere to the law and they interessed in the Covenant of grace who sought righteousness by the works of the law and they a Christian Church who denyed persecuted killed Christ and avouched themselves Moses his disciples John 9.27 not Christs And if that Church and the Christian be the same essentially he that was admitted to the Jewish Church was admitted to the Christian then baptism was needless yea irrigular for the entering and admission of a believing Jew into the Christian Church contrary to that 1 Cor. 12.13 for they were in the Christian Church before in that they were in the Jewish Church essentially the same then did Peter ill to exhort them to save themselves from them Acts 2.40 then was Luke mistaken in saying v. 47. The Lord added them daily to the Church after they were converted and baptized for they were in the same Church before all which are in my apprehension palpable absurdities But Master Cobbet thus backs his assertion Unless whilst the Jewish church stood any will say there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world but a legal Church for there was no other visible Church then that of the Jewes Ans. the perpetual visibility of the true Church is a point in which Papists and Protestants differ The Papists assert a perpetual visibility of the Church in Pastors and people as sensible as any other society of men so that at any time one may point with his finger and say this is the Church the Protestants that though it abide always upon the earth holding the whole faith without change and containing a certain number that constantly profess it yet this number may be very small and their profession so secret among themselves that the world and such as love not the truth shall not see them they remaining so hidden as if they were not at all Thus Doctor John White in his Way to the true Church sect 17. digress 17. sets down the difference If Master Cobbet mean as he seems to do a visible political Church in the former sense then it is no absurdity to say at some time while the Jewish Church stood there was no Evangelical visible Church in the world For at the time of Christs passion when the Disciples were scattered the shepherd being smitten Matth. 26.31 there was no such visible Evangelical Church yea some of the Papists themselves quoted by Doctor White in the same place hold that about the time of Christs passion the true faith remained in none but onely the Virgin Mary Alsted suppl panstr cath Chami de eccl l. 2. c. 16. s. 10. Dâ—inâ—e tempore passionis Christi ecclesia non erat visibilis talis scilicet in qua erant praelaâ—i subditi pastores oves Nam ecclesia visibilis non erat apud pharisaeos scribas Illi enim impudenter sceleratè errarunt But in the latter sense which the Protestants follow we can assign an Evangelical visible Church in the world distinct from the Jewish while the Jewish Church stood Alsted ubi supra Ergo ecclesia externa etiam tota deficere potest remanentibus occultis fidelibus quales tum temporis erant Simeon Anna Nicodemus c. At the time of Christs incarnation and before there was in the Protestant sense a true visible Evangelical Church in Simeon Anna and those to whom she spake who looked for redemption in Jerusalem Luke 2.38 In the time of John Baptists and Christs Ministery many baptized by John and Christs Disciples John 4.1 2. In the time of Christs passion besides the Apostles and those women who professed Joseph of Ariâ—â—thâ—a and Nicodemus are expressed John 19.38 39. to have owned Christ. And these were a distinct Church from the Jâ—wish I mean the Priests Scribes Pharisees and people who denyed Christ though not in their political government yet in their profession of faith which is necessary according to Protestants to make a company to be a visible Evangelical Church and essentially the same with the Church Christian Ames medul Th. l. 1. c. 32. Ecalesia est societus fidelium quia idem illud in professione constituit ecclesiam visibilem quod interna reali sua natura constituit ecclesiam mysticaâ—â— id est fides But Master Cobbet from his erroneous dictates would frame an answer to the argument brought from Peters words Acts 2.38 39. to prove that the imagined covenant-right is not sufficient to intitle to baptism without repentance and faith sith even of those Jewes to whom he said the promise is he pre-required repentance to baptism and thus he writes That then something further was required by Peter of the adult Jewes to actual participation of baptism and it was not because their Church of which they were members was no true visible Evangelical Church since it was Gods onely visible Church in the time of Christs incarnation of which he lived and died a member and none will say he was no member of any Evangelical Church but of a legal nor was it because
in his exercitation ch 5. are considered I Shall adde a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39 that I may at once shew the impertinency of its allegation for connexion between the covenant and baptism and infants of believeâ—s covenant-interest upon that consideration I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised Gen. 17.7 understanding it not as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives as a promise to each believer and his natural seed but as a promise to Abraham as the â—ather of believers and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large Jerem. 31.34 Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ and the Spirit as Gal. 3.14 is meant including justification sanctification and all graces And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration when he saith it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace in order to Salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition And after and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them onely by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents But I deny 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17.7 or that Isai 44.3 and such like nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it and there is this reason against it For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons and believers but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons for they were not such but then charged by Peter and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ and admonished to repent of it and therefore the words have clearly this sense The promise is to you and your children as bad as you have been and the mention of their children is not allusive to Gods expressions in the Old Testament but to their own curse on them and their children Matth. 27.25 and so cannot note a priviledge to them and their children as persons better then others but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of by telling them of Gods inrent for good according to his promise though they meant it for evil as the same Apostle doth Acts 3.17 18 19. and Joseph did Gen. 45.5 and 50.20 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of it self for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty not as a plea whereby they might claim nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism but the consequent on it For the promise whether it be of remission of sins or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master Sidenhams observation that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained but as attainable not before but upon their repentance and baptism neither to them nor to their children as their children but to them and their children and all afar off as many as the Lord should call 3. He doth not invite them to baptism but so as that he first puts them in minde of repentance Now if the promise had been alledged as giving title of it self to baptism he had left out repentance But putting it in first he plainly shewes that the alledging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism and first to repentance then to baptism nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of Gods calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise he had deceived them and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jewes and their infant males were circumcised by vertue of the promise so it should be to them in baptism is but vaiâ— without proof and without truth But Master Sidenham asserts that the words as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children which if true then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification sanctification and all graces was to them and their children whether called or no. But let 's view his reasons for this audacious assertion For saith he 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise repent you and be baptized for the promise is to you and your children even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speak de futuro as many as God shall call even of them also which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same veâ—b in either part of v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and neither used above once so that he might have said he useth two verbs in two tenses but neither changeâ—h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense and had said the promise is
the visible Church and partake of them who are not elect nor true believers But none but elect persons have the promises of the new Covenant made to them none but an elect person hath the promise that God will write his Laws in his heart be his God c. And therefore none but such in truth are in the covenant of grace though others may be in shew in it and accounted so by us Mr. Josiah Church in his Book forenamed pag. 41. interposeth thus 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant but not a mixt Evangelical Covenant for a mixt Gospel Covenant is a Covenant partly of works and partly of grace and the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was not mixed after that manner for the Law was not given untill four hunâ—red and thirty years after iâ— and then it was not mixed with it but onely annexed to it Gal. 3.17 Answer Mr. Church his Confession that spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant is as much as I need to justifie my speech Exercit. pag 2. who did not call the Covenant made with Abraham mixt in any other sense But saith he â— the difference was onely in the dispensation and not in the substance of the Covenant the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was as pâ—rely Evangelical as this whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for the Gospel is said to be preached unto them as well as to us and the temporal promises were Evangelical and belonged to believers as such for because of unbelief many obtained them not Heb. 3.19 Also there are temporal promises in this dispensation and the people of God have Christ and all other things by the same charter Matth. 5.5 6.33 Rom. 9.32 Ezek. 36.25 30. Answer If there were difference in the promises there was difference in the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham and ours It is proved from Gal. 3.8 that the covenant made with Abraham was Evangelical but not purely Evangelical It is not true that the temporal promises Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. belonged to believers as such For though many through unbelief entered not into Câ—naan Heb. 3.19 yet neither all nor onely believers entered in The Gospel was preached to them as well as to us Heb. 4.2 but not either by so purely Evangelical a covenant nor in so perspicuous a way We have temporal promises now but not the same nor by the same charter As for what he adds that the promises sealed in the former dispensation were principally spiritual I grant it but deny it any absurdity to say that no promise was sealed to many circumcised infants that their souls were not profited nor any benefit to them by circumcision though there was profit by it attainable and attained by many more than which to the present purpose is not gathered from Rom 2.1 2. I return to Mr. M. I take his grants pag. 99. That Circumcision was comprehended in his c. as belonging to the manner of administration af the Covenant together with sacrificeâ— and that the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted and so blot out my second exception against his first conclusion onely it is to be observed that pag. 187. he doth cross himself For whereas here he grants it to belong to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant there he will have it to belong to the substance of the Covenant not as a part of it but as a means of applying it And this is in effect all one as in his language to say it belongs not to the substance of the covenant for of it onely are the parts but to the administration For how doth it administer it but as a means of applying it But my third Exception requires more reviewing Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. had mentioned besides Christ and true believers a third sort of Abrahams seed not born Jews but made Proselytes who were Abrahams seed by profession who sought justification by the works of the Law did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God and alleged â—al 4 29. for it Against this I excepted 1. that I thought he could not shew where in Scripture such are called Abrahams seed To this he replies 1. That he named not Proselytes to add any strength to the argument it had been enough for his purpose to have said Some in the Church of the Jews were visible members yet not inwardly godly and these were called Abraham's seed as well as others Answ. I should have yielded to call such if they were Jews by birth or nature Abrahams seed but not so of any Proselyte and so Mr. M. had not his purpose of applying the term Abrahams seed to Gentiles who were believers onely in profession much less to Gentiles who did not so much as profess faith in Christ but sought righteousness by the works of the Law 2. He saith He never expected to have met with a quarrel for calling them who joyned to the Church by that cowmon name whereby the Church-members were called viz. the seed of Abraham or the children of Israel Answer There was no quarrel in my words but if Mr. M. did not expect that his sayings in that Sermon would be sifted to the bran it was his oversight They that doubted of the divine warrant of Paedobaptism had very great cause to discuss that Sermon being preached and printed at that time by such a man and taken to be the sense of the Assembly of Divines then â—itting at Westminster He says The seed of Abraham or the children of Israel were the common name by which Church-members joyned to the Church of Israel were called but he proves it not and till he do prove it I reject it 3. Saith he And could no place of Scripture be produced where Proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were noâ— Tanti Answer It would follow then that the promise Gen. 17.7 of being God to Abraham 's seed is not meant of Gentile Proselytes who were onely by profession Gods people not in reality much less of their natural seed and this would make most of the infants baptized unbaptizable by Paedobaptists own pâ—inciples for sure the do not take the natural infant children of them that are not Abrahams seed to be in the covenant Gen. 17.7 and therefore must confess them unbaptized 4. Saith he But if it were a thing of any mâ—menâ— it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that Proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2.10 22. compared Acts 13.26 compared with v. 43. but I forbear Ans. Of what moment it is hath been said I think it would be a very hard matter out of those Texts to prove any Proselytes much less such as were onely visible Church-members of the Jews seeking justification by works not
the Gospel as well to them as to us their eating the same spiritual meat and drinking the same spiritual drink as he doth in his Preface and here of untowardness in my expression and such as will bear no fair sense without the overthrow even of that difference between the Covenants which I would build on this distinction But let 's consider his Reason of this last Speech To this saith he I readily agree and then his distinction falls to nothing Answer I should rather have imagined that the contrary follows that if Mr. Blake do readily agree to my explication of the mixture of the Covenant that my distinction comes to something being confirmed by Mr. Blakes suffrage unless he take it for nothing But let 's follow Mr. Blake Seeing in Gospel-times in New Testament days this will denominate not a pure but mixt Gospel we are under such a Gospâ—l Answer 1. Mr. Blake alters the term distinguished I did not distinguish of a pure Gospel and a mixt Gospel as he intimates I did but of a pure Covenant and a mixt Covenant and asserted not the Gospel preached to Abraham to be mixt but the Covenant made with Abraham 2. It is false that we are under such a mixt Gospel as he imagined I asserted but Mr. Blake confirms his Assertion thus I know not how we could pray in faith Give us this day our daily bread in case we were without a promise of these things or how man could live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God in case we had no word from God Answer A believer may pray for daily bread in faith trusting on Gods goodness as he is a Creatour as our Saviour argues Matth. 6.26 as he is a Father in Christ Matth 7.11 as he hath made general promises Mark 10 30. Matth. 7.7 8. as he hath made special promises Prov. 10.3 Psalm 34.10 confirmed by constant experience Psalm 37.25 by the great assurance of the gift of Christ Rom. 8.32 though the special promises domestick or civil specially respecting the house of Abraham and the policy of Israel belonging not to him The word Deâ—t 8.3 I take to be his word of power or command such as that Psalm 33.5 not his word of promise yet if it be meant of his word of promise there are other promises by which the Patriarchs afore Abraham and the believers since have lived without the domestick or civil promises specially respecting the house of Abraham and the policy of Israel But Mr. Blake adds The Apostle tells us Godliness hath the promise of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 It would trouble many a perplexed man in case he could not make good that those words Verily thou shalt be fed Psalm 37.3 did not at all belong to him There is no believing man in any relation but he hath Gospel-promises in concernment to that relation as appears in that speech of Paul 's encouragement of Servants Ephes. 6.8 It were ill with all sorts had not they their domestick relation-promises Answer All this is true and yet it is true also that the special promises domestick or civil specially respecting the house of Abraham and policy of Israel belong not to every believer Mr. Bl. saith I place great confidence in my proof this mixture of the Covenant And sets down my words Apolog. 127. averring my proof so full as that I wonder Mr. M. Mr. Blake and others are not ashamed to except against it that what I deliver is plain according to Scripture that there were some peculiar promises made to Abraham Gen. 17. which are not made to every believer that the words 1 Tim. 4.8 is not to the present purpose for it doth not follow therefore that godliness hath the promise of the Land of Canaan or that Christ should be every godly mans seed And then adds I think I shall more gratifie the Reader in leaving this to his smile than in giving any refutation of it if he could assume that there is no earth but that of Canaan or at least that no other promise of earth but that will serve to make a mixture then he spake somewhat to the purpose otherwise it will be believed that our promises under the Gospel of things of earth as well serve to make up a mixture as Abraham 's promise of the Land of Canaan Answer Whether Mr. Blakes talk or mine be ridiculous the Reader may judg My speech is to purposes aimed at by me to wit the enervating the arguings from Abrahams Covenant and Circumcision for infant-baptism by shewing that the Covenant Gen. 17. was not a pure Gospel-covenant that is having no promises but what belongs to every believer and consequently Baptism not sealing the same covenant every way which circumcision did and therefore there is not the same reason from the covenant why infants should be baptized though they were circumcised And this purpose I doubt not to attain though I grant there is other earth than that of Canaan and that there may be other promises of earth besides that which will serve to make a mixture and yet the promises of things of earth as now extant under the Gospel do not as well serve to make up the mixture I assert in Abrahams covenant promising the Land of Canaan to be in the covenant of pure Evangelical grace as now it stands sith those promises of earth and this life are made to every believer or godly man now whereas the promises of Canaan and other things specially respecting the house of Abraham and policy of Israel Gen. 17. and elsewhere were not made to Lâ—t and other godly believers it is likely then living nor to Gentile-believers now under the Gospel Mr. Bl. goes on thus 2. As his expression is untoward so taking him at the best his proof is weak that the Covenant takes its denomination from the promises but the promises are mixt The most eminent promises which contain the mâ—rrow of all give the denomination and not such that are annext as appendants to them Answ. Though the most eminent promises may give the denomination of the covenant to be an Evangelical covenant yet to denominate it a pure Evangelical covenant it is necessary that not onely the most eminent but also that all the promises be Evangelical as though a man may be termed a Saint from the habitual purpose and bent of his heart and the constant course of his actions yet he is not denominated purely a Saint but from the entire and universal purpose bent inclination of his heart and entireness of holiness in his actions without the least inconformity to it Mr. Bl. proceeds thus Such as is the promise of the Land of Canaan an appendant to the great Covenant made of God with Abraham as Chamier with good warrant from the Text Gen 17.7 8. calls it lib. de baptis cap. Sect. The Covenant being made of God to be a God of Abraham and his seed which might have
Ishmael according to the meaning Rom. 9.8 as fleshly seed is called from natural generation simply considered but not as Gal. 4.23 it is meant of fleshly seed called so from natural generation in some respect to wit as begotten in a baser way The second consideration of Mr. Sidenham is this The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually profess Abrahams faith If he mean by the Covenant onely Circumcision I grant it of all Abrahams natural male children if he mean the covenant of grace which is Evangelical though I deny not that it was administred by the mediation of Christ and the work of the Spirit to many elect infants afore believing yet I deny that it ever was or shall be administred to any but the elect of God who have the denomination of Abrahams spiritual seed For I know not how the Covenant which promiseth remission of sins justification regeneration adoption eternal life is said to be administred but by giving these which are given onely to the elect not to Abrahams meer natural or fleshly seed Meer outward Ordidances and outward gifts and privileges as they are not promised in the Gospel-covenant which we call the covenant of grace either as made to Abraham or confirmed by Christs bloud so neither are they administrations of it but arise from Gods command or providence without the Covenant as Evangelical His third consideration is It 's no contradiction in different respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation and a childe under the same promise made with the parent for they both agreed in Abraham 's case which I grant if meant of Isaac and Jacob and such other Heirs of the promise as the Scriptures term them But I reject that which follows that none was a childe of promise but as he came of Abraham 's flesh for believing Gentiles are children of the promise though they come not of Abrahams flesh yea it is not onely true to the contrary but expresly avowed Rom. 9.8 That none are children of the promise as they come of Abraham 's flesh Nor is it true that as he came from Abraham 's flesh so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh for this is not true of males under eight days old or females and therefore this inference is vain Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed His fourth consideration is There was no distinction of Abraham 's fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the Old Testament but all comprehended under the same Covenant untill they degenerated from Abraham 's faith and proved themselves to be meer carnal and rejected the promise But this is manifestly false Esau was Abrahams fleshly seed but never his spiritual seed The Apostle determines Rom 9.11 afore he had done good or evil he was rejected and with the Apostle a childe of the promise and an elect person are the same No man is Abrahams spiritual seed but an elect person or true believer Scripture makes none else his seed spiritual Rom. 4.12 16. 9.7 8. Gal. 3.29 John 8.39 This very Authour makes the distinctions of fleshly and spiritual believing and natural taken out of Rom. 9.7 8 Gal. 4.23 3.16 most true And if a person may be Abrahams spiritual seed a while then the degenerate the elect and true believers may fall away finally and totally and if they that be Abrahams fleshly seed be under the same covenant with the spiritual till they degenerate then a person may be in the covenant of grace and be meerly carnal having not the Spirit of God then a man may be in the covenant of grace and not abide in it then the covenant of grace may be defective mutable and if there be no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual in the Old Testament untill they rejected the promise then there is no distinction of elect and reprobate till in time they embrace or reject the promise contrary to Rom. 9.11 He that holds this position must become an Arminian His fifth is There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham even under the New Testament as our Opposites must acknowledg as well as Infants so are the most visible Professours which they baptize which may have no grace and many prove carnal indeed through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions Answer It is ackdowledged that there is a carnal seed of Abraham under the New Testament in the Jewish Nation but visible Professours of the Gentiles which are baptized although they be many of them carnal men and so are many of the congregational Churches not baptized yet they cannot be termed the carnal seed of Abraham being not his seed either by nature or by believing as he did His sixth is when there is mention of Abraham 's carnal seed in oppâ—sition to spiritual seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abraham 's flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham it must be therefore of those of Abraham 's seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel and these were properly the carnal seed Answer The distinction of Abrahams carnal and spiritual seed is as the distinction of the Church into visible and invisible in which the members may agree to the same persons though on the other side also they may not agree The same persons may be of the Church visible and invisible and yet some persons may be of the Church visible who are not of the invisible and some of the invisible who are not of the invisible so some are Abrahams carnal seed who are also his spiritual as Isaac Jacob Christ some â—re his spiritual seed but not his carnal as Gentile believers some his carnal seed but not his spiritual as unbelieving Jews some neither his carnal nor spiritual seed as unsound Professours of faith of the Gentiles who are no way Abrahams seed nor ever called his carnal seed in Scripture There are but two places I know in which the term of Abrahams fleshly seed or childe is used Rom. 9.8 Gal. 4.23 in both which is meant of his seed by natural generation though in the later in a worse way In the former way those that embraced the Covenant without degenerating from Abrahams faith being descended from Abraham by natural generation are as properly termed Abrahams carnal seed as those Israelites that did backslide I grant Abraham was a natural father to many of thâ—se to whom he was a spiritual father as to Isaac and Jacob and the godly of their posterity but not to all He was a spiritual father to believing Galatians though not a natural Gal. 3.29 But what Mr. Sidenham saith That all to whom Abraham was a natural father were under the Covenant and had the seal untill they rejected themselves
believers not as father of men but it comes on no Gentile as father of believers but as Abrahams childe by faith The next also may be retorted if the blessing come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abraham 's Covenant then not in a meer outward Ecclesiastical privilege for that is no part of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 much less the substantial term of it it is neither Abraham 's blessing in the form nor fatness of it yea if it be meant by Abrahams blessing it is clipt half off not like it self it 's made an empty thing a meer outward privilege without salvation and so is in a manner reduced to nothing and half the seed of Abraham all the females and many more are excluded from any right to it For they had no right to the initial seal to wit Circumcision And to his question And to what end should the Apostle say The blessing of Abraham and not the Promise or Covenant is come to the Gentiles but that he intended it to the Gentile believers and their seed as formerly it came to Abraham and his seed I answer he saith The blessing of Abraham not the Promise or Covenant of Abraham because he in the Chapter before mentioned it and it was the proper effâ—ct of Christs being made a curse for us though he after mention the Covenant and Promise according to which it is bestowed But that the use of that term of the blessing of Abraham should intimate an outward privilege of an initial seal to Gentile believers and their natural seed is such a reason aâ— I am out of hope ever to understand Me thinks the use of that term vers 14. compared with v. 7 8 9. doth overthrow the fond conceit of the Assembly and Mr. Sidenham and is so plain a determination that the Promise of being God to Abraham 's seed is meant onely of true believers of the Gentiles and not their natural seed that if there were no more Texts it seems enough to me to overthrow their interpretation of Gen. 17.7 and the inference they make thence And in this I commend Mr. Sidenhaâ—s wit and the Assemblies that they let pass Gal. 3.7 without mentioning finding perhaps that it is expresly contrary to their conceit of Gentile believers children being reckoned for Abrahams seed I think it not amiss to add the word of Mr. Stalham Vindic. Redempt against Otes Gal. 3.13 14. Behold here a Gospel-blessing comes upon all those who are freed from the legal curse and if then the non-elected by this mans doctrine have the one he must yield the other also if freed from the curse they are blessed justified and saved ones this is worse than non-sense even impure blasphemy against the truth which shews all these to be connex to be freed from the curse to be blessed with Abrahams blessing to be justified and saved and therefore cannot be interpreted of a meer outward privilege belonging even to believers children who may be as Esau was non-elect There 's another Text which Mr. Sidenham takes upon him to turn the edg of it against Antipaedobaptists who produce it against Paedobaptists and he speaks thus But in Gaâ— 3.29 the Apostle say they describes who are the seed if you be Christ 's then you are Abraham 's seed and heirs according to promise so that now no children born of believing parents can be the seed for they must be Christ 's according to that in v. 26. we are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus Answer This Text is clear not to prove as Mr. Sidenham represents ouâ— conclusion that now no children born of believing parents can be the seed but that none of the Gentiles are Abrahams seed but those who are Christs by their â—aith or election and adoption to be the children of God for such are all that are Christs and heirs according to the promise But the children of believing Gentiles are many of them not such nor any of them in that he is the childe of a believing Gentile therefore all the children born of believing parents are not Abrahams seed as Paedobaptists suppose To this Mr. Sidenham opposeth 1. That the Claromont Bible hath it if ye be one in Christ then are ye Abraham 's seed and that the Apostles endeavour is to take away all difference between Jew and Gentile and to hold forth their unity in Christ where there is no distinction as formerly but now the Gentiles being one in Christ are Abraham 's seed as well as the natural and believing Jews Answer It is granted that the Apostle takes away the difference between Gentiles and Jews who are in Christ and asserts that now the believing Gentiles being one in Christ arc Abraham 's seed as well as the natural and beliâ—ving Jews But this makes for our purpose for as none of the natural Iews but the elect and believing were Abrahams spiritual seed so it is concerning the Gentiles none of them either of their children are Abrahams seed in the sense in which the Gentiles may be termed Abrahams seed but the elect and believing 2. Saith Mr. Sidenham The Apostle here hath no intent to shew the distinction of Abraham 's seed as the subject of the outward privileges and administrations of ordinances but to shew that none are spiritually and really Abraham 's seed and heirs of promise but such as are Christ 's one in him with Abraham for if this should be the distinction of seed as the subject of outward ordinances it would be as much against professing believers as infants for there is a carnal profession as well as a fleshly generation the former more abominable Answer I confess it is not the Apostles intent to shew the distinction of Abraham 's seed as the subject of the outward Privileges and administration of Ordinances for neither doth he make there any distinction of Abrahams seed there being in that passage no seed of Abraham mentioned but such as are spiritual nor doth he mention Abrahams seed as the subject meaning the adequate subject of outward Ordinances and Privileges there being many that were not Abrahams spiritual seed who might be circumcised baptized admitted to the Pass-over and Lords Supper and at least in some of these many who were might not though v. 26 27. compared together shew who were wont then to be baptized to wit believers and such as at least in profession put on Christ. And I conceive Pauls intent was to shew that none are spiritually and really Abraham 's seed and heirs of promise but such as are Christ 's one in him with Abraham Now this manifestly proves the thing we would have that none of our children are Abrahams seed in the Gospel-sense according to which the promise Gen. 17.7 is to be understood but elect and true believers and so not in that Covenant and consequently not by virtue of interest in that Covenant baptizable as Paedobaptists would have it But I know not any who
reason thus None but these who are Christ 's are Abraham 's seed and none are Chiist 's but real believers and therefore none but they must be baptized For though it is true that before God none have right to Baptism but such yet sith the Minister of Baptism cannot distinguish between a believer in reality and one in profession he is without fault in baptizing a believer onely in profession whom he takes to be a believer in reality If any say Baptism knows no flesh the meaning likely is that Baptism is not alotted to any for its natural birth though of a believer So that I need not answer Mr. Sidenhams arguments to the contrary sith I do not assert that none but Abrahams seed may be baptized Nor is it true that we have the same ground of charity to act on infants of believers as on grown men For though infants may be Christs yet we have not the same evidence that they are Christs which we have of grown persons whose words and actions shew that the Spirit of God dwels in them Nor would God have us 1 Cor. 7.14 to account the children to be holy as visible professours are for the parents faith but to be legitimate from the lawfulness of their generation Nor can it be proved that any one infant of the most godly person is taken into the same Covenant with the parent nor doth Christ 's respect to infants when brought to him give warrant to any to judg better of a believers infant than of a visible professour or to account of such an infant as baptizable Nor is it true that a general Scripture-assertion and the ground of an indefinite promise is more than all our Reasons to judg a visible Professour Christ 's or Abraham 's seed or a subject of Baptism sith the words and actions of such a one do shew more of Christs spirit and faith than any speeches of God or promises do of infants now existent and he that baptizeth a visible professor of faith proceedeth uppon certain knowledge according to a certain rule of baptizing Disciples which is more to assure the conscience in the doing the will of God then any Charitable judgement or any probable likelyhood of an infants being Christs or in covenant for the present or certain revelation of the infants election and being in covenant and so will be a believer hereafter can be to warrant a man to baptize it at this instant Nor is it true that he that baptizeth a visible professor goes by the purblind eye of his probable judgment For he baptizeth upon an unerring rule of baptizing manifest disciples according to an unerring knowledge that those he baptizeth are such under the Gospel the Jewes are Abrahams fleshly seed though they be not visible professors of faith in Christ no meer Gentile visible professor is Abrahams seed nor any true believers natural seed as such nor doth the covenant make every believer in reallity or any except Abraham much less every visible believer a spiritual Father I confess the spiritual seed of Abraham takes its denomination from the covenant I mean the future seed and from their believing the actual but the natural seed takes not its denomination from the covenant but Abrahams begetting nor is it true the Covenant made with Abraham and his natural seed is renewed in the new Testament with believers and their seed neither formerly nor now are infants of believers non-elect Abrahams seed nor is there in the word of God one passage either in the old or new Testament either of those alleaged by Master Sidenham or any other I know wherein infants of believers are visibly owned as we own visible professors There will be found visible subjects of baptism though neither infants of believers nor meer visible professors be Abrahams seed I conclude my animadversions on this chapter of Mr. Sidenhams with these considerations that none but elect or true believers of the Gentiles are the seed of Abraham with whom the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is made nor are persons to be baptized for their interest in that Covenant except it be made manifest by their profession of faith and therefore neither can we say of any infant of a believing Gentile that he is in that covenant nor if we could were it to be baptized till by profession or other waies its faith did manifest it to be a Disciple of Christ. In the 4. chapter Mr. Sidenham tells us of a being in Covenant according to the purpose of election in Gods heart which I allow and of being in Covenant in the face of the visible Church by the persons own visible profession which I deny not but for the other sort of being in covenant with God as in a political moral consideration as in the right of another through a free promise to him and his heirs it 's a meer figment there being no such kind of being in Covenant in the time of the new Testament nor doth Mr. Sidenham bring one text of Scripture to prove it and for his reasons they prove it not 1. Saith he If men deny an external as well as internal being in covenant none can administer an external ordinance an outward sign to any for we must go by external rules in these actings But this reason is nothing to prove a political moral being in covenant without any act of Covenanting by either of the parties in Covenant I deny not but that all the elect are in Covenant with God in his purpose and so infants are in Covenant with God by Gods promise eiher to his son when he gave them to him or at some other time And I grant that visible professors of faith in Christ are in Covenant externally by their own act of covenanting and such may be baptized they being Disciples of Christ. 2. Nor did I ever say that no Ordinance must be administred to these which are not internally in Covenant 3. Nor do I count it any absurdity to say we may set a seal to a blank though I like not the expression in this sense a man may lawfully be baptized to whom God hath not promised to be his God 4. And I have shewed we have certain evidence of visible professors being in covenant for we hear their profession and see theiâ— actions and their rule by which baptism is to be administred but of infants we have no evidence of their being in covenant by profession of faith according to which we are to be baptized yea we have evidence to the contrary and their being in covenant according to election is uncertain and if it were certain yet till they be actual believers or Disciples of Christ we have no rule to baptize them by nor is there a jot brought by Mr. Sidenham to prove they are in Covenant by their parents faith onely in Gospel times Nor doth any thing Mr. Sidenham hath said answer that which he saith is the great question I and we all urge that if God made the
1.2 3 4 5. If any should deny it yet the matter and form of expression v. 6. shewes it to be opposed to something which might be objected against what was before implyed For the speech the word of God hath not fallen or not taken effect intimates that there was some word of God which seemed to be without effect or to fall if the Jewes were cast off from being Gods people And it appears by the answer that the word of God was some promise concerning Israel as v. 6. shewes and Abrahams seed as v. 7.8 9. shewes The word of God concerning Abrahams seed which might be conceived to fall appears upon inquisition to have been that Gen. 17.7 either only or chiefly Piscat Sch. in Rom. 9.6 that word of God to wit that promise made to Abraham I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee Dickson expos annalyâ— Rom. 9.6 the word of God hath fallen when he said to Abraham I will be thy God and of thy seed I conceive it needless to adde any more it being so manifest and so conceived by interpreters of note Hence it appears also that the objection answered by the Apostle is this God promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations in an everlasting covenant therefore if the Jewes who are Abrahams seed are rejected the word of God falls To this the Apostle answers 1. By denying that every Jew who was descended from Abraham by natural generation and so a child of the flesh is meant by the seed there named who should be the child of God and so the promise of being God to them is not meant of all Abrahams natural posterity 2. By asserting that they who are counted for the seed and were children of the pâ—omise that is those to whom that Evangelical promise Gen. 17.7 belonged were a peculiar number whether of Jews or Gentiles according to Gods own choice and calling distinguished by no other discriminating reason but Gods will as he proves in Isaac and Ishmael v. 9. Esau and Jacob v. 10 11 12 13. and otherwise in that which followes Whence it appears 1. That the promise Gen. 17.7 was not made to Abrahams natural posterity as such and if so then it is not made to every child of a believer 2. That only the elect whether of Jews or Gentiles are the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 is made and consequently to no other of a beleivers children but the elect nor any other in covenant with God by vertue of that promise but they This to be the Apostles determination I confirmed Exam. part 3. sect 4. by the speeches of Beza Twisse Ames Bayn Walaeus Dounam new Annot Ainsworth Pareus Estius who though a Papist yet is reputed more solid and right about the the point of grace then the Jesuits are and added in my Praecursor pag. 36. the words of Mr. Rutherford of Scotland and Mr. Noâ—ton of New England To which I have added more testimonies of Beza Chamier and the Belgick Professors at the Synod of Dortâ—n â—n my Refutation of Dr. Savage his Position in Latin Sect 5. And because Mr. Blake seeks so much to possesse people as if I drew this from the Jesuits I will add Mr Dicsons words on Rom. 9.7 8. Neither doth it follow bâ—cause the Jewes are the seed of Abraham according to the flesh that therefore they are all sons in the Scripture sense or the seed promised For so even the Issmaelites should be accounted for Abâ—ahams seed contrary to Scripture which hath restrained the right of sons to Isaac and his family by saying In Isaac shall thy seed be called The sons of the flesh are to be distinguished from the elect sons of God for this God would when Ismael being secluded he called Isaac the seed of Abraham that not all are the elect sons of God but onely the children of promise or whom God determined of grace to make with Isaac sons of the faith of Abraham are the children of God and that seed to whom the promise is made Dr. Owen of Perseverance Chap. 5. Sect. 10. The Apostle Rom 9 8. calleth the elect the children of the promises or those to whom the promises to Abraham and his seed were made Chap. 7. Sect. 23 The persons to whom this promise Isai. â—9 21. is made are called thee and thy seed that is all those and onely those with whom God is a God in Covenant God here minds them of his first making of this Covenant with Abraham his seed Gen. 17.7 Now who are this seed of Abrhaam Not all his carnall posterity not the whole nation of the Jewes Our Saviour not onely denies but also proves by many Arguments that the Pharisees and their followers who doubtless were of the nation of the Jewes and the carnall seed of Abraham were not the children of Abraham in this sense nor his seed but rather the Devils John 8.39.40 41. And the Apostle disputes and argues the same case Rom. 4.9 10 11. and proves undeniably that it is believers only whether circumcised or uncircumcised whether Jewes or Gentiles that are this seed of Abraham and heirs of the promise So plainly Gal. 3.7 Know yee therefore that they which are of the faith are the children of Abraham and then concludes again as the issue of his debate verse 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham Mr. Marshal himselfe in his Defence pag. 102. saith secondly by the word Seed was meant the children of the promise the Elect Rom. 9 8. â—s Mr. Bayne nay Arminius himselfe confesses onely Arminius saith that they were elected upon foresight of their faith And indeed so far as I discern in the reading of Arminius his Analysis of the ninth of the Romanes the cited Remonstrants Defence of their opinion at the Synod of Dort on the first Article Mr. John Goodwin his late Exposition of the ninth to the Romans it is agreed that in the mystical sense the promise Gen 17.7 is determined by the Apostle Rom. 9 6 7 8 to belong onely to the elect though the Remonstrants would have them elected upon consideration of believing and the Contra-remonstrants according to the Apostles determination verse 11 c. assign no other reason of the election of some rejection of others but Gods will All do agree that the Apostle determines that every child of Abraham much lesse of every believer is not a child of the promse or the seed of Ahraham to whom the Promise is made Gen. 17.7 but the elect or true believers whether Jewes or Gentiles 7. It is proved that the promise Gen. 17.7 as it was Evangelicall or as the Apostle speaks Gal. 3.17 the Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fore-confirmed of God unto Christ was not to every believers naturall seed but to the true believers or elect persons who are meant by Abrahams seed because it can be true onely
were sent and the covenant exhibited 5. It is not true that the Apostle affirmes that the unbelieving Iewes are Abrahamites and Israelites not onely by reason of their birth after the flesh but also by reason of acceptance of the covenants and promises For neither is it true they did accept of the covenants and promises sith they rejected Christ to whom the promises were made Gal. 3.16 Nor doth the Apostle say They accepted of them nor at all give that as a reason of their being Abrahamites or Israelites Yea they were Israelites or Adamites antecedentally to some of those recited priviledges 6. Nor doth the Apostle sâ—y The Fathers and Adoption and Covenants and Promises belong to all the Israelites yea he denies the promises to Israel and Abrahams seed to belong to every one that is of Israel and Abrahams seed v. 6 7 8. 7. Nor doth he make any such distinction of promise in respect of the efficacie of it and collation belonging to some and tender or offering of the covenant of grace For neither doth the Apostle at all mention the offer of the covenant of grace with condition of duty to be performed nor doth he make the promise to belong to any who have not the efficacie of it yea to say the promise belongs to any and yet he not have the efficacie is to make the word of God fall which the Apostle disclaims as a thing by no means to be imputed to God for thereby he should be charged of unfaithfulness in not keeping his promise 8. Neither doth the Apostle make that answer which Gomarus sets down that though the priviledges v. 4 5 belong to all the Israelites yet all are not therefore true children becaâ—se the priviledges are attributed to them by reason of their outward call not by reason of their inward For the objection was not thuâ— To the Jewes belong those priviledges therefore they must be true children and heirs of salvation But thus Gods promise or covenant was with Abraham and his seed to be a God therefore either God must be a God of the Jewes who are Abrahams seed and they his people contrary to what your sorrow intimates v. 2 or else the word of God hath fallen Now Gomarus sets down another objection than that which the Apostle answers and another than that which the Apostle makes as may appear by what I have said before And for the three things Mr Blake gathers from Gomarus the first is not true that my objection is wholy solved For there is not a word in Gomarus that answers this objection Every child of Abraham was not a child of the promise Gen 17 7 8 as the Apostle determines Rom. 9 7 8. None were his seed to whom the promise as Evangelical belongs but the elect therefore neither was the covenant Gen. 17 7. as Evangelical made to all the naturall children of Abraham not they circumcised because the covenant was made to them nor is the covenant made with every beleiver by profession nor hath he right to Baptisme by vertue of that title nor is the covenant made to every true beleivers infant or naturall child there are none of them Abrahams seed but the elect and therefore all the plea of the Paedobaptists from Gen. 17.7 to prove the right of every beleivers naturall child to baptism is manifestly false going on that supposition which the Apostle plainly contradicts The second thing is frivolous For there was no contradiction in appearance in the Apostles words which need reconciliation and therefore Gomarus and Mr Blake have taken upon them an unnecessary task But the seeming opposition to be reconciled is between Gods performing his word to Abrahams seed to be a God to them and his rejection of them from being his people which the Apostlee doth indeed reconcile righâ—ly but Mr Blake and Gomarus are both mistaken in the thing as hath been dâ—monstrated Yet this I find that Gomarus with the other four Professors of the united Belgick Provinces of whom Gomarus is first set down the same that I conclude in their Iudgement at the Synod of Dorâ— about the second Article of the Remonstrants in which they say That to the elect onely the promises are made is professedly proved by Paul Rom. 9 7 8 For onely the sons of promise are counted for the seed to whom that word of the everlasting possession of the inheritance appertains So that I have five more Suffrages together for me And for the Doctrine of Covenant Holiness I confess the Apostle establisheth this Doctrine That all the spirituall seed of Abraham to wit true beleivers or elect persons are holy federally as being those to whom God hath covenanted to be God But Mr Blakes doctrine of Covenant holiness that Gods covenant is to be a God to every beleiver and his seed which is no other than his naturall seed for infants are no otherwayes his seed is so far from being established by the Apostle that he determines the contrary denying that all Abrahams children were children of the promise and proving the elect onely to be his seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 as it was Evangelicall was made by the state of Ishmael and Isaac Esau and Jacob. And for this I am assured that I have the whole current of the Scripture for me and feare not to make this Text my Asylum still having considered what Mr Blake produceth both here and before the frivolousness of which I hope by Divine assistance to shew in that which follows There is somewhat which Mr. Blake adds in that Chapter in answer to the Allegation of Matth. 3.9 in which as I shewed before John Baptist rejects their claim to baptism though Abrahams naturall children without repentance and faith and asserts the onely seed of Abraham in covenant to be his spirituall Here to saith Mr. Blake I answer First When those that were no better then thâ—se make the same plea John 8 3â— We be Abrahams seed and were never in bondage to any Christ yeilds it v. 37. I know that ye are Abrahams seed he allowes all that upon this account they can claim And for Pharisees he doth not barely yeld them to be Church members but also Church teachers Matth. 23.2 I reply Christs yeilds they were Abrahams naturall seed but denies them to be Abrahams Children verse 39. that is to whom the promise Evangelicall belongs The Pharisees were not yeilded to be Church-members in the Christian Church nor were admitted by Iohn Baptist or Christs Disciples to baptisme without repentance and faith nor were they teachers in the Christian Church though among the Jewes they are said to fit in Moses Chair 2. Saith Mr. Blake Iohn Baptist doth not deny what Christ yeilds but lets them know that this place wil not serve to avoyd wrath whilst they live in impenitencie notwithstanding that this plea holds they may perish and yet Gods Covenant with Abraham hold being able of stones to raise up children unto Abraham to make
good what in covenant he had said He no where sayes that they are not intituled to priviledges of ordinances and thereby interessed in the prerogatives of Gods visible people What Paul Rom. 9.4 5. so largely yelds them Iohn Baptist doth not deny them which also now they had in visible possession Answer Neither Iohn Baptist nor Christ nor Paul yâ—ilded them either to be in the covenant with Abraham Mr. Blakes own words notwithstanding this plea holds c. do plainly imply that Gods covenant did not hold with them and that by them God should not make good what in covenant â—e had said or to be Gods visible people or to have right to the priviledge of baptism but the contrary is declared by them What Mr. Blake concludes the Chapter with â—s either but a dictate that priviledg of ordinance meaning of Baptism is a Birth-inheritance without either proof or shew of proof from Prov. 19.14 Rom. 3.1 so that I shall trouble the reader with no more of the fopperies of this chapter onely I desire the reader to observe that whereas usually Paedobaptists grant that by birth a grown man is not intituled to the initial Seal without his own profession Mr. Blake denies that Iohn saith the viperous Pharisees and Sadduces and unbelieving Jewes are not inâ—ituled to priviledges of ordinances and thereby interessed in the prerogatives of Gods visible people But Mr. Sidenham in his Exercit. ch 6. takes upon him to refell the plea from Matth. 3.8 9. gathering that the pretence of being Abrahams children could not give them a right to baptisme and if John denied Abrahams naturall seed on that account much more would he the adopted children But herein I conceive he doth not rightly set down his adversaries collection For the adopted children of Abraham I conceive are no other than beleivers and surely Mr Sidenhams adversaries do not imagine that John denied thâ—m baptism I for my part remember not my allegation of this Text afore the writing of this Book But I find Mr. William Kay in his Baptism without Bason thus averring 1. That Matth. 3.8 9. is directly against Infant-baptism in that none but such as have faith and repentance must think to be baptized 2. That the pretence or consequence from circumcision and being Abrahams naturall children to prove their title to Baptism I add to the Covenant Evangelicall Gen. 17.7 is also condemned in that he allows them not to think within themselves We have Abraham to our Father which is not meant simply as if they might not in any sort think Abraham to be their Father for Christ acknowledgeth it John 8 37. and they might lawfully think that to be so which was so but in some respect and the respects are intimated in the Text 1 In respect of baptism to which they come but as Parâ—us Comment in Matth. 3.7 John did not admit them as being unworthy 2. In reference to the covenant Gen. 17 7. which appears in that he adds For I say unto you that God is able even of these stones to raise up children to Abraham which can be understood no otherwise than of spirituall children who are children of the promise Rom. 9.8 which the Pharisees are not 3. In respect of that which they imagined that they should be sâ—cured from wrath to come v. 7 in that they had Abraham to thâ—ir father Now what saith Mr. Sidenham to this 1. That they were of age and men degenerated from Abrahams saith that he did not refuse them because Abraham was their father or upon that account that Abrahams seed had not right to the promise bâ—t as onely pretending Abraham to be their father when they walkt contrary to the principles of Abrahams faith Answer 'T is true he did not refuse them because Abraham was their Father nor as onely pretending Abraham to be their Father Nor doth he deny that it was true that they had Abraham to their father in respect of naturall generation but because though they had Abraham to their father in respect of naturall generation yet they did not believe as Abraham nor had right to the promise which is enough to shew that the children of believers are to be refused and not admitted to Baptism till they become believers themselves 2. Saith Mr. Sidenham This is the same as to grown men professing faith baptized and then not admitted to the Lords Supper because carnall and Apostate it â—e said You have cut off your own right by your contrary actings which impeach not the truth of this position That believers and their infants are in covenant and ought to be judged so untill they manifest the contrary or that if they belieued themselves afterwards the promise should not be to them and their children And that the Text holds out no more than this that when persons are grown up to years and come to understanding they must then stand on their right and looke to make out personall qualifications for new ordinances Answer 1 It is not the same For such a speech should imply a former right now cut off but John Baptists speech disclaims any right they ever had to baptism 2. John Baptists speech proves believers children as such are not in the covenant for Abrahams children were not and that they ought not to be judged so until they manifest faith and repentance for Iohn Baptist denied them to be Abrahams children in covenant without them and that the promise is not to their children because they believe for the promise was not to Abrahams children by naturall generation though he were father of believers and it proves that none of Abrahams children have right to baptisme without faiâ—h and repentance and consequently infants no more than grown men But Mr. Sidenham yet thinkes to avoid the inference from this text thus 3. This was at the first institution of the ordinance when baptism was was newly administred now new institutions require grown persons and actuall visible bilievers to be the first subjects of them they could not baptize their children first for then the parents would be neglected And the bringing in of a new ordinance requires renewing of speciall acts in those which partake of it Now in the new Testament God renewes the covenant of Abraham adds a new initiating seal to it It was before entail'd in such a line which is cut off iâ—'s now of the same nature onely every one must come in his own person first as Abraham and enter his own name and then the promise to him and his seed Thus it was in the former place where when the Jewes came to be baptized they were exhorted first to repent and be baptized themselves then the promise is to you and your children Answer All this scrâ—bling is at random and wiâ—hout any proof or answer to the objection It is quite beside the objection which was not barely from John Baptists not baptizing their children but from the reason of Iohn Baptists refusing to admit themselves to
baptism So that Mr. Sidenhams answer is onely to the Consectary infer'd from the Conclusion deduced not to the premises no nor the first conclusion it self For the argument is this If Abrahams natural children had not right to baptism without their own faith and repentance But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently noâ— infants to be baptized Again if Abrahams children were not in the covenant without faiâ—h and repentance neither are ours for we have no more priviledge for our children then Abrahams had But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently a believers child is not in covenant because a believers child Yet once more If persons circumcised and descendended from Abraham were not therefore admitted to baptism then the same thing doth not intitle to baptism which did intitle to circumâ—ision nor the command of circumcision a command concerning baptism But the Antecedent is true Ergo the Consequent and consequently infants are not to be baptized because they were to be circumcised Now Mr Sidenhams answer is to the allegation of John Baptists not baptizing infants not at all to any of these arguments drawn from his refusing the Pharisees though coming to his baptism and conceiving they might having Abraham to their Father Yet what Mr. Sidenham faith takes away the force of the argument if it had been thus made Those we are not to baptize whom John did not baptize but Iohn did not baptize infants Ergo. Yea his answer strengthens the argument For if Johns baptism were at the first institution of baptism and infants were not baptized then neither are they to be now For the first institution is the rule of observing it as the Lord Christ himself urgeth concerning marriage Matth. 19.4 and Paul concerning the Lords Supper 1 Cor. â—1 23. If baptism were a new institution and did require actuall visible believers as the first subject of it then it is not all one with circumcision which admitted infants at the first institution then such onely are to be baptizâ—d except some further Institution can be shewed the institution for infan-circumcision is not sufficient for infant-baptismâ— for that was in force as much at the first institution of baptism as after It is false that they could not baptize their children first that is at the first institution John Baptist and the Dâ—sciples of Christ might have baptized infants at first as well as Abraham circumcisâ—d them yea ought to have done it If Paedobaptists say true that the command of circumcision was the Rule in force concerning baptism nor need the parents be neglected no not though they had baptized the children first in order of time yea the right of the child being contemporary with the parenâ—s faith if they say true they should have been baptized as soon as ever â—he parent was a believer or the child in covenant Gods Covenant with Abraham was to him and his seed but his covenant was never made to every believer and his seed In the new Testament God renews the Covenant wiâ—h Abraham in respect of spirituall blessings but for the promises domestick or civill he doth not renew it He adds to the new Covenant the sâ—al of Christs death whose blood confirmed it and the initiating seal of his Spirit I know no other initiating seal added to it It is not true that the â—nâ—w covenant or covenent of grace was entail'd before to a certain line though the covenant with Abraham in respect of the civill domistick promises were entail'd to Abrahams naturall posterity and is now cut off Nor is the covenant every way of the same nature with Abrahams covenant nor upon a believers entering his name is the promise to him and his seed nor is it Acts 2.38 39. said that upon their repenting and being baptized themselves that the promise is to them and their children but the being of the promise to them and their children is urged as a consideration fit to move them to repent and be baptizd He next sets down 4 affirmations 2. That no man must be baptized or receive an ordinance by any fleshly prerogative Answer Then no infant is to be baptized by vertue of birth from a believer for that is a fleshly prerogative as the birth of Christ was but a fleshly prerogative to David the virgin Mary though there were an entail of a promise to them of this thing so is the imagined birth-priviledge of believers infants and yet there is no promise to retain it to a believers child 2. That no person grown up to years of udderstanding hath right to a sealing ordinance but upon his own personall qualification Answer Then Mr. Blake did erre in intituling unbelieving Jewes to priviledges of ordinances and thereby interessing them in the prerogatives of Gods visible people 2. There is no other right to an infant to baptism than what a grown person hath The third affirmation I grant and the fourth too if there were any such old priviledges of the promise to be conveyed to those which do really embrace the Gospel and their seed And this grant that those Pharisees and Sadduces had demonstrated themselves to be onely the children of the flesh and not of the promise and that they were excluded shews the covenant as Evangelical not to be made to a believers naturall seed nor they thereby have right to baptism SECT XXX Of the meaning of Mr. M. his second Conclusion the ambiguitie of which is shewed I now return to Mr. M. whose second Conclusion was thus expressed Ever since God gathered a distinct select number out of the world to be his Kingdome Citie houshold in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdome citie houshold of Satan he would have the iâ—fants of all who are taken into covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and Family and not to the Devils This conclusion bâ—ing the main pillar upon which he settles Infant-baptism the Antecedent of his Euthymem I examined with great diâ—igence after the exact manner of Scholastick Writers in their Disputes Which dealing of mine being indeed the oneâ—y way to clear truth and approved by a learned member of the Assembly Mr R.C. of P.C.O. and known to be one of the most accurate disputants in his time in Oxford yet Mr M. pag. 105. of his Defence in a most injâ—rious though frivolous way traduceâ—h as an indirect Artifice To which some answer is given in my Apologie sect 5. pag 23 I shall now view the reply he makes First he compares my dealing with an unnam'd person in Cambridge whose faculty was to make a clear text dark by his Interpretation whereas my way was the true and onely way to clear his meaninâ— by distinction which is by Logicians called the light of speech and in all consideration of things to be first as Keckerm Log Syst part 2. lib. 1. c. 1 spâ—aks Noâ— hâ—â—h Mr M. shewed in his Defence that any of those
Church is not enough to make a visible Church member in the Christian Church which consists not of a whole nation known by circumcision genealogies outward policy national meetings family dwelling c. But of so many persons as are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. adds Yea say you further it will follow that there may be a vâ—sible Church which consists onely of infants of believers I answer no more now than in the time of the Iewish Church it 's possible but very imâ—roble that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behind them and it 's far more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites Answer It is somewhat more possible or more probable there should be onely infants left in a Church of a house town or village than in the Church which consists of a numerous nation as the Iewish Church did nor is it unlikely â—uch things hâ—ve happened in sweeping plagues And if it be farre more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites the sâ—me with more probability may be said of a Church gathered in the Pedobâ—â—pists way in which there is of necessiâ—y so much ignorance in matters of Religion all being admitted Church-members afore they know or can know anything of Christ. Jam sumus ergo pares But if it be possible as it is granted that a Church visible of Christians may consist only of infants it wil follow that there may be a visible Church of Christians in which there is no one professor of the faith contrary ro the definiâ—ion of a visible Church That it is a company of professors of faith and they shal be visible Church-members who neither by themselves or any for them do any thing which is apparent to the understanding by the meditation of sense whereby Christianity is expressed The case is not the same of the Iewish Church and the Christian for the Christian Church is any company though but of two or three gathered together in Christs name Matth. 18.20 But the Iewish Church was the whole Congregation of Israel known otherwise as hâ—th been said than the Christian. Next Mr M. against these words of mine It is also true that we are not to account infants of believers which he omits in repetition to belong to God before God which he likewise omits in repetition in respect of election from eternity omitted by him or promise of grace in Christ omitted also of present estate of in-being in Christ or future estate by any act of Science or faith without a particular relation for there is no generall declaration of God that the infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate excepts two things 1. This makes nothing against that visible Church-membership be pleads for Answer If that visible Church-membership he pleads for arise from the covenant of grace in Christ as hitherto hath been the plea nor can they shew any other then they are not visible Church-members who have not an estate in that covenant which is the cause of it For take away the cause and â—he effect ceaseth and then the visible Church-membership of existing infants of present believers is overthrown sith the cause of it appears not And if they are not to be accounted by act of faith to belong to God in respect of promise of grace in Christ and the Minister is to dispense the seals by a judgment of faith as Mr M. holds in his Sermon pag. 47 in his Defence pag. 111. then there being no act of faith concerning existing infants of present believers they are not to be baptized 2. Saith Mr. M. I retort rhe Argument upon your self and dare boldly affirm that by this argument no visible Church or all the visible professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. wâ—thout a paricular revelation because there is no declaration of God that present visible professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this For visible professors who are grown men the same will serve for infants of believers Answ. If Mr. M. had put in these words of mine By any act or science of faith I should have granted the same might be said of visible professors grown men which I had said of infants But this no whit hurâ—s our Teneâ—t or practice who do not baptize grown persons because by no act of faith or science we know them to be in the covenant of grace in Christ but because by an act of faith we know Christ hath appointed Disciples appearing such by heir profession of faith to be baptized by us and by an act of science or experience by sense we know them to be such whom we baptize Concerning whom though we cannot account them elect and in the covenant by an act of science or faith without a particular revelation yet we may by an act of certain knowledge mixt of science and prudence from sense of their visible profession know them to be serious sober understanding and free professors of Christianity and by an act of faith from Christs institution of bapttizing professing disciples know we ought to baptize them and upon their profession out of charity which believeth all things hopeth all things 1 Cor. 13.7 judge them by an act of opinion elect and in the covenant of grace in Christ. None of all which can be said of existing infants of present believrs and therfore we ought to pass no judgement on them in this thing but suspend our judgmenâ—t and act of baptizing concerning our selves with that comfortable hope which we have from indefinite promises Next Mr M. takes upon him to excuse some speeches of Mr. Cottons against which I excepted in my Examen pag 42 4â— one was That the covenant of grace is given to every godly man in his seed Concerning which Mr M. tels me That he takes M. Cottons meaning to be that look as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein these Patriarks were of Christ in all other things wherein God promised to be the God of them and types their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed now as they could then and what ever inâ—onveniences or absurdity you can seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also As for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'l
14. art 2. The principall acts of saving faith are accepting receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification sanctification and eternall life by vertue of the covenant of Grace ch 17. art 2. The perseverance of the Saints depends upon the nature of the covenant of grace The other speech he would clear is thus by me expressed Baptism seals onely the promise of saving grace remission of sins c. So in the Directory of Baptism That it is the seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ and of our union with him of remission of sins regeneration adoption and life eternall and after And that the seed and posterity of the faithfull born within the Church have by their birth interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it In the Rules of direction in the Ordinance Octob. 20. 1645. That the Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ. 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 To this saith Mr. M. I utterly deny your consequence that unlesse there be absolute promises of saving grace to infants the seal is set to a blank For give me leave but to put the same case First for the â—nfants of the Jewes was the seal put to a blank with them or had they all promises of saving graces Secondly let me put the same case in grown men who make an external visible profession and thereupon are admitâ—ed to baptism 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 known 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 he made a promise he would have performed it Answer To the words in my Examen the seal is put to a blank was added as some speak which I did to intimate that it was Paedobaptists phraseology not mine and that they counted this an absurdity not that I did so So that my consequence was it being counted frequently in their writings an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank that is that baptism should be administred to them that had not the promise and it seals onely the promise of saving grace if the promise of saving grace belong not to the infants baptized then in vain are they baptized according to Paedobaptists Hypothesis for the seal of the promise is put to them to whom it is confessed the promise is not made Mr. M himselfe in his Sermon pag. 43. Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost of union with Christ of adoption of forgivenesse of sins of regeneration of everlasting life all which things are signified and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme The covenant then sealed is the covenant of these saving graces which if it belong not to infants baptized but another outward covenant in vain are they baptized for they have not the covenant which baptisme seals And that this is the sense of other Writers appeares by the words of Ampsing Diolog eontra Anabapt p. 195. Dico ergo Omnibus fidelibus baptismum competere cum ipsorum semine tam mulieribus quam viris tam infantibus quam adultiâ— horum omnium enim se Deum fore declarat Deus his remissionem peccatorum in Christi sanguine his mentis renovatioâ—eÌ„ per spiritum sanctum his vitaÌ„ aeternam promittit ac regnum coelorum quare quoque ipsis obsignabitur hac Dei gratia Ames Bellarm. enervat tom 3. l. 1. c. 4. ch 9. Protest Circuâ—cisio à primâ suâ— institutione habuit promissionem illam annexam quâ nulla est major Ero Deus tuus seminis tui post te Gen. 17. quam Christus ita interpretatur Matth. 22. ut vitam aeternam illa doceat contineri Paulus Ephes. 2.12 Ostendit spem vivam ex illâ pendere I wil add the words of Calvin Epist. 229. which are in stead of many otheâ—s both because of the great eminency of the man being accounted almost an Oracle by many of my Antagonists and because they are full to the present purpose they are thus in English This principle is still to be held That baptism is not conferred on infants that they may be made sons and heirs of God but because they are already with God reckoned in that place and degree he grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh Otherwise the Anabaptists should rightly keep them from baptism For unlesse there should agree to them the truth of the outward sign it would be a meer profanation to call them to the participation of the sign it selfe Moreover if any deny baptism to them our answer is ready that they are already of the flock of Christ and of the family of God because the covenant of salvation which God maketh with believers is common also to the sons as also the words sound I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee Gen 17.7 unlesse this promse went before by which God adopteth the children of believers not yet born it is certain baptism is ill bestowed on them Which words do plainly express the covenant of salvation which is made by God with believers is common to the sons that so it is meant Gen. 17.7 that with God they are afore baptism reckoned in the place and degree of sons and heirs of God who adopteth them not yet born that unlesse the truth of the outward sign that is according to Mr. Ms. adoption regeneration remission of sins c. did agree to them it were profanation to call infants of believers to the participation of the sign and Anabaptists should rightly keep them from Baptism Therefore Calvin thought the covenant of saving grace Gen. 17.7 made by God to believers infanâ—s which Mr. M. disclaism and otherwise infant-baptism is profanation and it is rightly opposed Yea the shifts that are used to free their doctrine of infants interest in the covenant and the sealing of it from the difficulty of verefying it against the exceptions before alledged do all seem to suppose the covenant in which infants have interest is the covenant of saving grace As when Mr. Baxters plain Scripture c. pag. 223. will have Baptisme seal onely the conditionall promise Mr. Philips vind pag. 37. expresseth the sealing by offering Mr. Davenport's Confess of Faith p 39. maketh the benefits of the covenant not to be offered in the Sacraments but to be exhibited onely to true believers Mr. Cotton's grounds of Bapt. pag. 70 The covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all but onely offereth it and seals what it offereth Dr Homes that the administration of the covenant of grace belongs to believers children though not the efficacie Dr. Twisse that Infants are in the covenant
this doth not prove this is the Genus of Sacraments much less of all Sacraments Nor doth it any whit justifie the determining of doubts of conscience and so binding duties on mens consciences concerning meer positive rites without any institution of Christ or Apostolicall example meerly from this devised term The Seal of the Covenant and malâ—ing it so necessary to be acknowledged that it is pressed on persons to be admitted to the Lords Supper as it were a necessary Article of Faith 2. This term Seal of the Covenant applied to these Sacraments as being of their nature is so farre as my reading and memory reach but a novell term not used till the 16. Century in that not used among the learned Romanists and Lutherans at least not frequently I grant the Ancients say Men are sealed by baptism and sometimes by laying on of hands or anointing after baptism And this sealing is attributed to infant baptism by Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration But this sealing was not a confirmation of the covenant of grace but a confirmation of their faith received in Baptism The ancient Greeks call it the seal of Faith as the Latins call it the seal of Repentance and the Sacrament of Faith in respect of the profession of Faith as Grotius Annot. on Mat. 28.19 observes when he saith And such were the Interrogations of faith either in the first times or those next the first in respect of which by Basil and others it is called the seal of faith sealing of faith of repentance by Tertul. in his book of Repentance and this sealing was not to assure a promise but to strengthen and keep their faith or vertues Whence as Mr. Gataker observes in his Strictures on Dr. Davenants Epistle pag. 44 45. they accounted Baptism to some not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pardoning of sins but a seal of vertues and where Nazianzen calls â—t a Seal he expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal as keeping and noting dominion No where do I find any of them use the term Seal of the covenant of grace applied either to Sacraments in generall or to baptism in special 3. But were the use of the term Seal of the covenant of grace in the Scripture or the writings of the Ancients yet it is against Logick to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant as the genus and so to make it of its essence For it is a rule in Logick Definitio non fit ex verbis metaphoricis Scheibler Top. cap. 30 num 126. Ita Aristot Topic. lib. 2. c. 2. sect 4. Keckerm Syst. Logic lib. 1. sect cap. 8. Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every translated speech is doubtfull till reduced to proper for it may have divers senses Besides metaphors or borrowed speeches may be many as in this point we may call a Sacrament a Pledge as in the Common Prayer Book Catechism or a pawn earnest as well as a seal Chamier Paust Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 9. sect 10. You have also the similitude of a pledge somewhat divers from Seals but nevertheless tending to the same which we also doe most willingly use And if we should define a Sacrament by a pledge and from that metaphor infer that an infant must contract afore it receive the Sacrament as a pledge we might do it with as good reason as they who infer they are to be sealed because the seal followes the covenant Well doth Chamier call a Seal a Similitude which cannot shew what a Sacrament is but what it is like and therefore all metaphors are unfit to shew the quidâ—â—tative conceit of a thing nor are to be used in definitions except there be want of proper terms of which there is not in this case Now to define a Sacrament by a Seale of the covenant is to define it by a metaphor neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Seals in proper acceptation they make no visible figure or impression on the body therefore to use the term thus is an abuse much more when positions and duties are urged on mens consciences from it I will subjoyn Mr. Baxters words in his Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 64. pag 11. Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals as being a thing not to be proved from the word for all Rom. 4. But I am not of their mind yet I think it is a Metaphor and to make it the subject of tedious disputations and to lay too great a stress upon a metaphoricall notion is the way not to edifie but to lose our selves Lastly were all this yielded to Mr M. that the term Seal of the covenant were the language of the Scripture and Ancients and fit enough to express the generall nature of Sacraments yet I conceive it of little moment to the ends to which it is applied For what is it to seal and not to confer grace but onely to assure And so the use of it is to represent to the mind as a morall instrument But that is not done to infants who are not naturally capable to understand the meaning therefore this term Seal of the covenant beyond sign of grace doth not take away the objection of Papists Lutherans or Anti-paedobaptists That without giving grace or faith by baptism it is in vain or without effect to baptize infants And in like manner the deriving from it Paedobaptism is very frivolous These things will appear by considering what Mr M. and others say of the covenant which they say is sealed and of the sealing there being little agreement among Paedobaptists whether the inward or outward covenant the absolute or conditionall be sealed whether the sealing be absolute or conditionall to the Major Minor or Conclusion I will examine what I find said by Mr M. First whose words are commended by Mr. Pryâ—â—â— in his Suspension suspended pag. 19 c. â—e saith In every Sacrament the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen and this is sealed absolutely in baptism to all that partake of it But 1. there 's no Scripture that saith so That Rom. 5 8. is impertinent For Christ is not called the Minister of Circumcision because he did administer circumcision to others that were not true he circumcised none but he was a circumcised Minister for the truth he was of the circumcision that is a Jew not a Gentile Nor is it said his circumcision was to confirm the promises of the Fathers that they were true but that therefore he was a circumcised Minister for the truth of God that the promises of the Fathers might be confirmed by his ministring the truth of God in his preaching or in his accomplishment of what the promises foretold 2. Nor do I know any act in baptism that hath any aptnesse of it self or by institution to seal this position that the covenant of grace and
all the promises of it are Yea and Amen 3. Yet were it so this sealing is not to Infants who have no intelligence thereof and so no confirmation thereof by baptism 4. Nor doth this sealing any more pertain to the children of believers than unbelievers it is but of the truth of the covenant in it self not of any persons interest in it 5. This is as well sealed by the baptism of others yea by the baptism of any one deceased most of all by Christs baptism as by each persons own baptism 6. This sealing may be not onely to them that are baptized but to them that deny baptism yea to Infidels yea to Devils who may and do believe the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it to be Yea and Amen and have it sealed as well to them by the baptism of a person as to the baptized and better than to an infant But perhaps Mr M. helps the matter in the second or third But as to the second saith he 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 seals sealing the spirituall part of the covenant to the receivers upon condition that they perform the spirituall part of the covenant Thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Dr. Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are Seals alledges then they are falsly applied oftentimes he answers to Bellarmin Sacraments are conditionall Seals and therefore not Seals to us but upon condition Answer The spirituall condition is faith so Ames Bell. enerv tom 3. l. 1. â— 1. q. 4. th 11. Sacramenta non sunt testimonia completa absoluta nisi credentibus Sacraments are not compleat and absolute testimonies but to the believing Now if the Sacraments seal onely conditionally they seal onely this proposition that he that believeth shall be justified saved c. But this is all one with sealing the truth of the covenant in it self nor doth this seal the baptized persons interest in the covenant any more than the unbaptizeds no more to the infants of believers than of unbelievers not at all to any till they believe and so to no infants ordinarily and if then the baptizing of them must be derived from this interest and sealing of the covenant either none are to be baptized till they do believe or all alike are to be baptized Besides if Sacraments be but conditionall signes or testimonies incompleat and conditionall till persons believe then they are but conditionall incompleat Sacraments till a person believes sith to be a sign seal is of the nature of a Sacrament and if so then infants have not a compleat Sacrament or absolute but an incompleat and conditionall baptism and consequently though the baptizer begin to baptize the infants yet he cannot say he doth baptize them but must wait till they be believers and then he may say he baptizeth them and gives them a compleat Sacrament and is bound to baptize them when they come to years whom he did wash in infancy or else he mocks them which is the mind of Christ indeed that he that believeth should be baptized and no other Mark 16.16 Besides whether there be any conditionall sealing may be a uqestion Mr. Baxter Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 77. pag. 140. speaks of it as a strange thing useless and vain But this I shall leave till I examine Mr. Baxters exceptions against me about the condirional covenant and sealing onely I take notice of his words Sect. 79. pag. 141 A conditional seal is not a seal till the condition be performed and infers that if baptism be a conditionall seal it is no seal and consequently no sacrament to an infant untill he doth perform the condition Mr M. adds Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or tie for him to perform who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute All circumcised and baptized persons did or do stand absolutely ingaged to perform the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision obliged to keep the Law that is the legall and typicall administration of the covenant which was then in force and infants among the rest are bound to this though they had no understanding of the covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this seal was administred to them Answer It is true God required that his covenant should be kept which is expressed to be That every man child among the Hebrewes should be circumcised Gen 17.9 10. but this was the duty of the parents not of the infants who were to be circumcised not to circumcise And it is true That all circumcised persons were by the eircumcision obliged to keep the Law And if circumcision sealed this its sealing of this was the sealing of a command not a promise of God for they are not obliged to keep Gods promise that is the work of God alone but his precept so that this sealing is not of the covenant of grace at all yea by this sealing obliging to keep the whole Law the covenant of works is sealed rather than the covenant of grace as the Apostles speech shews Gal. 5 2 3 4 And this sealing belongs to all infants and elder persons for all are tied to perform the condition of the covenant that is to repent and believe And if hence be derived a title to baptism either all are to be baptized because all are obliged to the condition of repentance and faith or none are to be baptized but penitent believing persons To speak the plain truth the right use of baptism is first to seal to God testifying our repentance and faith by it afore God seals to us by it any benefit of the covenant of grace To conclude Mr. M. hath not yet acquitted himself from putting a seal to a blank which Mr Calvin counts a profanation of the Sacrament when he baptizeth an infant who hath neither a promise of spiritual grace from God nor doth perform the condition of the covenant nor understand by baptism any thing of the covenant nor professe any accptance of the covenant nor is or can be known to have any part in the covenant of grace nor is there indeed any thing but vanity in this discourse of Mr. M. or the Paedobaptists doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant of grace and the interest of believers infants therein SECT XXXII The exceptions in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. against Mr Ms speeches about the covenant and conditionall sealing are made good against Mr. M. and Mr. Blake BUt that we may the better discern the vanity of Paedobaptists conceits about the seal and covenant I shall enquire a little more into this point in which I find much jangling
and have those that have promised as sureties the infant should believe and obey Christ which they have not been able to perform but have taken on them Christs prerogative Heb. 7.22 Nor is the baptism of the infant his sign or seal he being meerly passive as they say and so doing no act nor engaging thereby and if the parent do engage for the child the parent should be baptized for the child if baptism be the baptized party his seal But as I said I do not call baptism a seal of the covenant and therefore am not tied at all to answer this Argument except to shew the fuciâ—ity of it For which end 1. the mannâ—r of speech is liable to exception in the use of the term Proper Covenant which I imagine Mr. B. useth unskilfully for Properly so called 2. There is no proof of the Major from this that Baptism or the Sacrament is a mutuall engaging sign or seal For that proves rather that baptism or the Sacrament it self is a proper covenant than that that which is sealed by the Sacraments is a proper Covenant 3. Nor doth it follow That if the very definition of a proper Covenant be that it must be a mutuall engagement that which is sealed by the Sacraments must be a proper covenant but onely proves that upon supposition that the covenant sealed to by the Sacraments must be a proper covenant that then it must be with restipulation or mutuall engaging 4. though Lawyers do determine that a covenant properly so called is a mutuall engagement yet this proves not that which in Scripture is termed the covenant which they say baptism seals is such Yea in all the places that I know where the covenant of grace is mentioned there is no restipulation at all mentioned neither Gen. 17. nor Jer. 31. nor Luke 1. nor Heb. 8 10. But where there is a restipulation it is rather the covenant of the Law than of the Gospel 5. That which is a meer prophesie or promise is as properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Covenant as a mutuall engagement as I shall shew hereafter against Mr. Bl. 6. Nor do I know why that may not be a mutuall engagement if the absolute promise were sealed to by the Sacrament as well as if the conditionall For if the engagement in the conditionall covenant on Gods part is that if he believe he shall be justified and on mans part that he will believe or rather in baptism he testifies he doth believe The absolute promise is to give faith Is not God and Man in like manner engaged by baptism in sealing this as well as the other 7. I know not how it can be truly said That Baptism as given is Gods seal and as accepted Mans seal For neither doth God give baptism to be accepted but his promise nor is the baptized said to accept baptism but the promise Nor is there any act of God which may be called his Seal but he covenants and I presume they will not confound Covenant and Seal 8. Nor doth the infant accept or seal or engage and therefore in infant-baptism there is no covenant or seal 9 By this description of Mr. B. there should be a mutuall seal and so a severall seal and not baptism Gods and Mans seal too For according to the manner of sealing Covenants which are mutuall as the one party seals with his own seal so the other party seals with his own distinct seal and so if baptism be Gods seal the party bapâ—ized should have another seal to signifie his engagement 10. Mr. B. tells me that Grotius de jure belli and other Lawyers will inform me that the very definition of a proper Covenant is that it must be a mutuall engagement But he doth not tell me where it is in Grotius nor in what other Lawyer I have lightly looked over the â—1 Chapter of the second book of Grot. de jure belli ac pacis which is de promissis and some other following and find not that which Mr. B. saith but find ch 11. sect 5. that he determines that of an infant is no promise because the use of reason is required to a promise and therefore in infant-baptism there is no restipulation or mutuall engagement and so no proper covenant by Mr B. his doctrine But what ever other Lawyers say I am mistaken if it be not usuall with the Lawyers in conveyances to use this expression That the seller is said to covenant to and with such a person who makes no restipulation or reciprocall engagement And both in the Scottish covenant and in our solemn League and Covenant I find covenanters engaged to do many things without any restipulation or reciprocall engagement and therefore do not conceive it necessary to a covenant that it be a mutual engagement or with restipulation Mr. B. adds 2. If it were the absolute promise of the first grace that is sealed by the Sacraments then the Sacraments must be given to no man or to all men but that is absurd therefore so is the former The consequent is manifest because that absolute promise or prophesie is onely of the elect and that before regeneration Now no man hath any sign given him so much as probable by which to judge of the unregenerate elect so that it must either be given to all or none Answer The whole frame of this Argument depends on these mistakes 1. That a person hath title to baptism by vertue of its interest in Gods covenant of grace and that accordingly a Minister is to baptize 2. That a probable sign of such interest warrants the baptism of the party so interessed which I have often proved to be false and that nothing but manifest discipleship certainly known to the baptizer warrants him to do it And indeed if we must baptize according to that rule of persons interest in the covenant probably signified Salvages in New England are to be baptized upon the probable signes they give of being wrought upon by a Sermon afore they know and profess the faith of Christ and few or no infants are baptized there being either no sign given to any man of their being in covenant or at most but of very few of the baptized Mr. B. Ap. to his Aphor. p. 70. If a Minister adventure to administer it upon probability then should he be guilty of prophâ—ning the ordinance 3. Saith Mr B. Or we may argue thus It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments But it cannot be known before the fulfilling no not at all to whom particularly that absolute promise doth belong therefore that absâ—lut promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacraments Answer 1. By denying the Major 2. By retorting the argument thus It may be known to whom that covenant belongs which is sealed by the Sacraments But it cannot be known ordinarily in this to whom particularly the conditionall promise
doth not promise and coâ—sequently not to engage himselfe by the Sâ—crament to make good his promise unto them But Mr. B. adds thus 3. If the promise be to oâ—hers besides believers then so is the seal for to whom God promiseth to them he engageâ—h himselfe to performe but the promise is to others therefore c. This will be evident if it be once understood that it is only the conditional promise which sealeth by the Sacraments if thou believe in the Lord Iesus thou shalt be saved For this promise is made to unbelievers though the good promised is not to be enjoyed by any â—hat performe not the Condition Thus I have fully proved in the foresaid Appendix to my Aphorisms and will fall under the next question Answer I read thaâ— to Abraham his seed were the promises made or said Gal. 3.16 That the promise through the faith of Christ might be given to them that believe v. 22. Jf ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed heires according to the promise v. 29. Whereby are given unto us exceeding great pretious promises 2 Pet. 1 4. The children of the promise are counted for the seed Rom. 9.8 Strangers from the Covenants of promise Ephes. 2.12 But this is to use Mr. B. His own words of my doctrine strâ—ng and wild dostrine to say that God promises to unbelievers the promise of salvation is made to unbelievers that to them he engageth himselfe to performe nor do I see how he can avoid Antinomianism which he so much abhors to wit the justification of Infidels if iâ— be true that this promise is made to unbelievers Nor is he relieved by saying the promise is made to them though the good promised is not to be enjoyed For what is this but to say the promise is made to them by God but not performed which is to make God false Nor is he relieved by saying it is made conditionally only to unbelievers if thou believe thou shalt be justified For this is equivalent to this he that belâ—eveth shall be justified and so the promise is made only to the believer though it may be said to be offered tendered propounded as a Law or ordinance of God to unbelievers yet neither Scripture language nor any other approved Auâ—hors speech will I concieve warrant this speech God promiseth engageth himself to performe this pormise of salvation justification is made to unbelievers As for his dictates in his appendix and the next question the futility of them is already shewed He goes on thus 2. If God do no more in his actual calling to believers than he doth when the Sacrament is rightly applied to hypocrites then he actually sealeth to hypocrites The major is proved by the enumeration on the severall acts 1. God maketh the promise 2. He commandeth ministers to publish it 3. He hath instituted the Sacraments as mutual engaging signes or seals He commandeth ministers to deliver or apply them to those that profess their consent and desire to enter or renew the Covenant This I need not stand to prove beeing Mr. T. Here yeildeth that the giving of the Sacrament is the right act of the administrator which it could not be except it were commanded as also the initiating seal to the children of those believing parents that will enter him into the Covenant as is proved before Now what act more than these doth God performe to the elect or believers Answ. It was assayed to be proved before but not proved that God commandeth ministers to deliver or apply the Lords Supper to them that desire to renew their Covenant or baptism to believers infant children what I said of the right act of the administrator I spake perticularly of baptism Nor is it true that God maketh promise to hypocrits or commandeth ministers to publish it and how is it from Scripture speech or truths to say God hath instituted the Sacraments as mutual engaging signs or seals and how destructive this is to infant baptism is shewed before To this puestion I answer The witness of the spirit is a further act of God necessary to his sealing as I meant my words and express my self in my Postscript Sest 21. Pag 153. what saith Mr. B. to this Jf it be said that he add the seal of his spirit that is nothing to the question seeing we are speaking only of the outward seal Answ. though Mr. B. spake only of the outward seal yet he should have spoken of the inward also If he would have opposed my saying he should have proved that God actually seals by the outward Sacrament without the inward testimony of the spirit till then he spake nothing to the question But saith he Jf it be said that he assureth the conscience of the truth of the promise and maketh the outward seal effectual I Answ. 1. That is still the inward seal and so nothing to this Answ. He should rather have said it is all in all to this sith my words denie Gods actual sealing withouâ— 2. That is the making of the seal successful which is nothing to the sealing If you seal a deed of gift to three men and one believeth it and another doth not believe it and another doth half believe it yet this doth not make it no sealing to him that believeth not you seal equally to them all Answ. 1. However it be in mens sealing yet Gods actual sealing is still effectual they seal only to the eye he to the heart 2 Cor. 1.21 22. 2. He makes no deed of gift but to believers nor seals to any but them Ephes. 1.13 and â—4 30 Rom. 4.11 and 8.15 16. 3. And God doth not alwayee assure the elect or believers but they oft conclude hardlyer against themselves than others do that have So that I desire Mr. T to produce any one act which God performes to believers and not to others which may appropriate the name of sealing to them Answ. though God do not alwayes actually seal to believers yet this doth neither prove that his actually sealing is uneffectual nor to any others Mr. B. hath answere to his demand and were it not that I much pitty the souls of many ministers and poeple who are by this notion of seal of the Covenant of grace partly perverted to uphold and continue as manifest a Corruption as ever was in the Christian church I mean infant-baptism being by all most by Mr. B. Confessed to be without institution and example in Bible parly perplexed about delivering and recieving the Lords-supper it would much trouble me that I have spent so much time de lanâ Caprinâ a new devised notion But overshooes over boots I must needs add few lines more in answer to Mr. B. whose page 1â—6 saith thus And by this the former question about sealing conditionally may be decided which Mr. T. darkneth with a mâ—ze of words and addeth That God seals not conditionally in this sense as if he left it to a mans liberty to whome he had
should be if an initial seal either of Circumcision or Baptism if either of these then this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed hath this sense I will bring it to passe that thou thy seed proselytes believers of the Gentiles and their seed even infants shall be circumcised or baptized If any can make any other sense of the words I shall be his debtor And if this be the sense then the promise is made a preâ—iction of infant-Circumcision and Baptism which whether it be not a ridiculous exposition I leave it to any considerate man to judge The Apostle Rom 9.6 7 8. where he expounds this very Scripture understands being a God of saving grace according to election and by Abrahams seed the elect onely Rom. 4 11 12.13 16 justifying of believers by faith Gal. 3.16.29 inheritance and blessing to believers throâ—gh Christ Jesus Our Lord Christ Luke 20 36 37 38. Of being the children of God and of the resurrection Mr. M. his self in his Sermon pag. 7. makes these words a promise of salvation to the infants of believers dying in their infancy pag. 10. he saith The substance of the Covenant on Godâ— part was to be Abrahams God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion to be an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life And this he distinguisheth from the administration of the Covenant Yea in his Defence of his Sermon pag. 98. he conceives the right allegation of an expression of Cameron That Circumcision did seale primarily the temporall promise sanctification secondarily to have an untoward look as being incâ—ngruous to a covenant of grace in Christ to ratifie temporall blessings which they may have that shall have no portion in Christ. Hath it not then a more untoward look to make this pretended visible privilege to proselytes children though but visibly owning God and his covenanâ— of having an initiall seal Circumcision and Baptism communicated to them meant by the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Much more to call this the Copy of Abraham the Father of believers Not that I deny temporall promises in that Covenant which I have proved to be mixt but I allege these passages onely to show the inconsistency of Mr. M. his speeches Besiâ—es the promise were not true so expounded for if this were the sense I will be the God of the posterity of proselytes owning God and his Covenant that they shall be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents then God doth promise that visible privilege to them for the words are a promise of an event not a declaration of a right and show what God would do not what they might claim which in many he performs not there being may of the seed of proselytes that never had the privilege and many of the children of Christian gentile believers who never had the visible privilege of being accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom whereas the word of God must be so expounded that it do not fall as about this very text the Apostle resolves Rom. 9.6 Mr. M. Defence part 3. pag. 127. saith It was not a personall privilege to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity taken into covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed and p. 129. This I add to make it more clear that that promise Gen. 17. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the naturall seed of believers Answer 1. What Mr. M. means by Taking into covenant is somewhat doubtfull to me by reason of his using the term Covenant sometimes for the outward covenant or administration sometimes for the promise of God and confounding these terms taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant being covenanters entring into covenant sometimes meaning these terms of the promise of grace sometimes of the initiall seal termed by him the Covenant and taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant sometimes being understood as they should always be in order to Gods act who alone takes into covenant and puts a man into covenant with himself but frequently though abusively by another mans act aâ— the administrators act of Circumcision and Baptism very seldom of being in covenant or belonging to the covenant by the circumcised or baptized persons own act of promise though in respect of it onely in right speech a person is said to be a Covenantâ—â— or to enter into covenant Of which thing I have often though in vain complained it causing obscurity which a man who is a teacher of others should avoid But concerning the promise Gen. 17 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee in their generations 1. I deny that Abrahams naturall posterity were taken into covenant that is circumcised as I conceive he means by vertue of that promise as I have often proved and is in effect confessed by Mr. M. Defence pag 182. when he saith The formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God 2. I deny that under the term Thee is meant any other than Abrahams individual person 3. I deny that under the term Thy Seed is ever â—eant in Scripture the naturall seed of proselytes or Christian believing Gentiles 4. I deny that by the promise I wil be the God of thy seed can be concluded that which Mr M. asserts That thâ—s promise Gen. 17.7 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise wâ—iâ—h from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believer or that this was Abrahams Copy That upon his and the proselytes visibly owning God and his Covenant their posterity should have this visible privilege that they should be accounted to belong visibly to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents Nor doth Mr. M. prove this sense of that promise Gen 17.7 either from the words or their coherence or by comparing it with any other Scripture as yeelding that exposition of it elswhere but saith something pag. 127 128. of his Defence to which though I have answered it sufficiently in my Postscript to Mr. Blake Sest 6. pag. 119. yet I repeat it with addition because much of pleading of Paedobaptists is hence First saith he though Abraham was the Father of the faithful and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and pertake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God and gave him interest in the spiritual graces of the Covenant and none but himself yer it was so beneficial
and advantagious to his children that for his sake they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdome and houshold and partake of the external priviledges of it and thereby be trained up under the discipline of it and so be fitted for spiritual privledges and graces which God doth ordinarily confer upon them who are thus traâ—ned up so shall it be with them who become followers of Abrahams faith Ans. 1. Privileges of Abraham in that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed are either Evangelical belonging to Abrahams spiritual seed that is elect persons or true believers or domestick and political as that of multiplying his seed the birth of Jsaac continuation of his church in and from him in his inhereting posterity till Christs comming the birth of Christ deliverance out of Egypt possession of Canaan these belong to Abrahams natural seed yet not to all but to the inheriting not to Jshmael nor the sons of Keturah The former all are partakers of it who follow the faith of Abraham whether Iews or Gentiles but none are in refference to these promises reckoned Abrahams seed but those who are real believers in Christ. A Proselyte owning barely God and his covenant vissibly is not either Abrahams seed or partaker of the spiritual priviledges of sanctification justification salvation The latter sort of promises belonged to Abrahams natural posterity yet not to all but to the â—eed inheriting nor to all of them but to the Iewes and in them for one of them to the line from whence after the flesh Christ came None of these were made to the bare vissible Proselites and their children though I grant their children where taken into the polliâ—y of Israel and were to be circumcised and to eat the Passover yet neither did this priviledge belong to them by vertue of the covenant but the command nor for their faiths sake as the immediate adequate reason for then these shouâ—d have belonged to prâ—selites of the gate who beleived in God as Cornelius the Centurion who was a believer but they did not for he was not Circuâ—cised nor to be circumcised with his children if he had any nor blamed for defect of it but meerly so far as is exprest in Scripture because it was Goâ—s wâ—lâ— to have it so Now Mr. M. brings not a word to prove either that the children of prosylites vissibly owning God and his covenant or the natural postâ—riâ—y of christian proâ—essors of the Gentiles are either Abrahams seed or have such an Interest in exâ—ernal church privileges as Mr. M. asserâ—s by vertue of that promise or thaâ— whaâ— agrees to Abraham in respect of exâ—ernal church privileges for his faiths sake must agree either to only vissible prosylites or christians or real believers but speaks like a dictator not a disputer Nor is there any good consequence in this what agreed to Abraham for his faith's sake agrees to every believer For then every believer should be Father of the faithful as Abraham was for his faith's sake It is true that if the truth of Abraham's fâ—ith were the immediate adequate reason of external privileges as iâ— was of justification it would follow them what exâ—ernal privileges agree to Abraham for his faith's sake should agree to every believer but such believers then must be true real believers as Abraham was not bare vissible prosyâ—iâ—s or christian professors But surly Mr. M. means no more by for Abraham's faiths sake but this that Abrahams faith was the motive or occasion God took to enter into covenant with him nor was it simply his real true faith but his remarkeable exemplary faith described Rom. 4.18 19. which was the motive or occasion of Gods entring into covenant with him which is not verefied of every true believer and the motive or occasion was not barely the truth but the eminent degree of his faith In my Postscript Pag. 119. I gave a like instance Matth. 16.18 19. the keyes of the kingdome of heaven binding and loosing were given to Peter for his confession sake yet it follows not the keyes are given to every one that makes the same confession as he did And the reason because the confession was eminent and exemplary at a special time and it was but the occasion not the immediate adequate reason of that gift to him for that was onely the special grace and purpose of Gods will 2ly saith Mr. M. Abraham's natural seed prosilites of other nations could never by vertue of their becomming followers of Abraham's faith have brought their children into covenant with them so as to have a visible Church-member-ship as we know they did Answ. I do not know that the proselytes natural seed had the visible church-member-ship Mr. M. Mentions by vertue of the promise Gen. 17.7 and their parents faith but of Gods command Exod 12 48. 3ly saith he And we know also that this promise of being the God of believers and their seed was frequently renewed many hundreds of years after Abraham Jsaac and Jacob were dead and rotten as Deut. 30.6 so Esa 44.2 3. so likewise Esay 59.21 and this last promise your self acknowledg Pag. 54. to be intended chiefly of the nation of the Iewes at their last calling in And whereas you use to elude these texts by saying these things belong onely to the elect when they come to believe and reach not to any privilege which is external I reply by the same answer you might cut off the seed of Abraham Jsaac and Jacob for to believers then as well as believers now were these promises made Answ That which I say is no elusion of the texts but so plain and evident that Paedo-baptists of note do concur with me Mr. Rich. Baxter in his letter to Mr. Bedford in the friendly accommodation between them To this and that which followeth I answer 1. These following arguments perswade me that you erre 1. no such promise thaâ— giveâ—h certainly Cornovum or the first effectual grace to all the rightly baptized or to all the children of believers can be shewed in Scripture I will circumcise thy heart and of thy seed seems to me to be none such 1. because els it should not be the same circumcision that is promised to the parent of the child but there is no intimation of two circumcisions in the texr one to the father being only an increase or actuating of grace and the other to the child being the giving the first renuing grace 2. the text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant state but in their adult Deut. 30. For. 1. v. 2. The conditon of the promise is expressly required not onely of the parents but of the childâ—en themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the sam acts which are tequired of the parents viz to returne to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth
to be meant onely of those that were capable of the act v. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God So that it is not ment of those that are uncapable of so loving And after A new heart is given to the elect onely By this doctrin you feign a new heart not to be proper to the elect which is contrary to all the Anti-arminians that I know of Out of which it plainly appears that Deut. 30.6 Speaks not of an external privilege but a spiritual grace proper to the elect nor can be meant of the seed of believers in their infant staâ—e but in their adult In the text Jsai 44.2 3. speaking of Gods pouring his spirit on the seed of Jacob his servant And Ieshrim whom he had chosen whom he bids not to fear and his blessing on his off-spring and that they shall spring up as amongst the grass c. the terms Jacob and Jeshurim are taken not personally for it were in vain to bid Jacob dead long before not to fear but Collectively either for the nation of Israel or the church of God called the Jsrael of God Gal. 6.16 In the former acception the seed and off-spring must be ment of the children of Israel that is the Israelites by natural generation and then the sense is as Mr. Gataker in his Annot. on that text my spirit that is my blessing the one expoundeth the other whereby they and their state should thrive and flourish and mulâ—iply and increase that had been almost clean exhaust and exceedingly impaired in a manner beyond al hopes of recovery before ch 26.19 Ezek. 37.3 11 14. So of their land ch 32.15 and of their â—eed ch 61.9 He followeth still the comparison taken from grounds well watered as ch 58.11 and the seed sown in soil ch 32.10 In the latter 〈◊〉 he it is a type oâ— that spiritual growth and increase of Gods church and the members 〈◊〉 under the Messiah by the graces and comfortâ— oâ— his spirit Acts. 9.31 Eâ—hes 4.12.15 Col. 2.19.2 â—et 3.18 Sâ—e ch 2â— 6 and 37 3â— and 61.9.21 Take it either way it makes noâ—hiâ—g for aâ— external vissible privilege from age to age belonging to the natural seed even o◠〈◊〉 believers but in the first acception it nâ—â—es a future multiplying of the Jewes then much wastâ—d in the laâ—ter spiritual graces and comforts to 〈…〉 And for the last tâ—xt Ames Coroâ— Acts. 5 c. 2â— versum vicesimum quem in hanc partem Remonstrantes trahunt in alteran partâ—m accipit Apostolus Paulus Rom. 11.27 promissionem absolutâ—m electorum propriam in eo Contineri manifestis verbis confirmans Extermâ—n nihil sonâ—t spiritus meus qui est in 〈◊〉 â—eminis etiam inculcatio solos electos â—â—â—caciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc citulum interpretante Rom. 9. â— Gal 3.16 4.28 Mr. Gataker annot on Esai 59 21. thy seed the faithful the seed according to the promise Deut. 30.6 Rom. 9.6 8 Gal. 3.16.29 Se Dr. Owen of Perseverance ch 3. Sect. 41. ch 4. Sect. 3. ch 5. Sect. 9. ch 7. Sect. 23. And for what Mr M counts absurd I yeild iâ— that my answer cuts off Isaac's and Iacob's natural posterity from these promises except they be elect And as for Mr. M. deprehending me in absurdity and trifling such as I cenceive in Mr. Cottonsâ— words I tell him that his discourse runs upon a mistake of my words and meaning which he doth almost in every thing he repeaâ—s of mâ—nâ— and censuâ—es out of hast to frame his book as I am willing to conceive For where do I say that which he ascribes to me and from which he would infer like triflinâ— and absurdity as was in Mr. Cottons speech that God made this promise to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be the God of them and their seed in all generations And yet if I had said it such trifâ—ing as Mr. Cotton used would not have followâ—d on those words ascribed to me unless I had said also that Abraham Isaac and Jacob were put for every believer and â—heir seed had been meant in â—hat proposition ascribed to me of their spirituall seed by faith And for the close of that discourse in which he tells me Thus by your own argument you cut off all the Jewes but such as were elect and inwardly holy as much as you do the Gentiles from having any visible communion in externall privileges I say Mr. M. fathers on me his own brats first a proposition I deliver not then an argument which was none of mine as he makes it and then a conclusion I never owned nor would follow on that proposition or that argument he would father on me For if it were granted that I asserted that God promised to Abrahaham Isaac and Jacob to be the God of them and their seed in all generations and that my reasoning on Mr. Cottons words would prove this proposition must be meant onely of the elect and inwardly holy as Mr. M. falsly imagines I do not cut off the Gentiles from having any visible communion in externall privileges unless I had said the elect Jewes or Gentiles onely had visible communion in externall privileges by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 whereas I never said that externall privileges as v. 9. of the initiall seal of Circumcision was proper to the elect and inwardly holy or derived it from the promise Gen. 17.7 but onely from the command v. 9.10 SECT XXXVIII Animadversions on the third Chapter of the first part of Mr. T. Cobbeâ—s Jusâ—â— Vindic. Sect. 1 2 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church-Covenant and externall privileges of the covenant of grace are refelled TO how little purpose Mr. M. hath alleged the promise Gen. 17 7. hath been considered I shall now view what Mr Cobbeâ— Just. Vindic. part 1. â—hap 3. brings for his doctrine of federal holiness of Church-members children from thence First he begins Sect. 1. with certain distinctions The Covenant of grace saith he is considered either nakedly or as invested with a visile politicall Church covenant if not explicite yet implicite We are to consider this place Gen. 17. not so much in the former as the later sense God making of it with ference to the Church which was to remain in the posterity of Isaac v. 18 19 20 21. albeit at present it be to be contained in Abrahams own family whence also he ordaineth an initiatory seal and way of restipulation to which they submitting together as one selected body collectively and as members thereof distributively they did implicitly make confession and promise to God and bind themselves in a nearer religious tie one unto another Hence then renewed Deut. 29. 2 Chron. 15. 30. 34. Nehem. 10. Ezek. 16 8. Answer It had been well if Mr. C. had defined the covenant of grace in this sense and how it is feâ—cht from Gen. 17.7 that I
according to men children of the promise as Mr C speaks Heb 4 1 4 proves not that the promise of grace and glory may be to one as his legacy or portion externally and according to men of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short For though there be mention of a promise left yet not of a promise left to any that come short of it unless by being left be meant propounded or tendered onely Antipaedobaptists do grant they admit false brethren to baptism and the Lords Supper called by Mr Cobbet seals of Church and Covenant fellowship but it is not in them to admit them into the fellowship of covenant meaning the covenant of grace for that is Gods peculiar We admit them to baptism on this ground not because to us they are in covenant we suspend any judgement about their interest in the covenant as being out of our cognizance and no Rule for us to admit or keep back from baptism but because we know them to be professors of faith in Christ. If by Blanks be meant such as to whom the promise of the covenant of grace is not made and by Seals Baptism and the Lords Supper we think we do ordinarily put seals to a blank nor do we make scruple thereof or think it true that the seal must follow the covenant or that Gen 17.9 10 11 13. Acts 2 38 39. 1 Cor 11 25 prove it That it is not taught Gen 17.7 10 11 13 Ast 28 39 is shewed in the fore part of this Review Sect 5 and in this part Sect 5 8 13 20 21 22 23 37 and elswhere 1 Cor. 11 25 the cup in the Lords Supper is called the new Testament in Christs blood but that all or onely those who are in the covenant of grace must have the the cup is not proved thence and the falshood of it is shewed above often We do not say when we admitted persons to baptism we judged them to be in the covenant of grace else we had not admitted them but we knew they professed faith in Christ and so were Disciples of Christ and thereupon admitted them according to our Rule Matth. 28 19 leaving it to the Lord whether they be in the covenant of Grace or no we being not directed to enquire whether they were in the covenant of grace but whether believers and disciples by profession I for my part agree not to it that either according to Scripture or the best Protestants any are said to be children of the promise or that the covenant of Evangelicall grace in the N. T. confirmed by Christs blood is made to them or belongs to them besides the elect Such Doctrine gives great advantage to the Arminians undermines perseverance in grace and the Polemicall Doctrine of our choice Divines as I shewed Exâ—men part 3. Sect. 4. and elswhere in this part of the Review Mr. Norton Mr C. his Colleague commended by Mr Cotton with Mr Cobbet as a prime writer in the New English Churches Resp. ad syl quaest Apollon p. 30. saith Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi objectum faederis Ecclesiastici sunt tum electi tum reprobi My own Tertulliâ—n in his book de Anima chap. 21 22 when he urgeth that Texâ— 1 Cor 7 14 for a peculiar cleanness of believers children by privilege of seed means not the federall holiness Mr C. teacheth but holiness by reason of the freedom from that unholiness in their procreation which the Infidels children had from the many gross idolatrous superstitions by which they were defiled and as it were dedâ—cated to the Divell as I shew in my Apologie Sect 16 page 85. Paraeus Peter Martyr Bucer Melancthon Mr. Philpot are all Neotericks Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Jerom Austin though they did plead for Paedobaptism from the Argument of Circumcision yet did not mâ—inâ—ain Infants covenant-estate as Mr. C. but a necessity of baptism to Infants ready to die because of the Text The soul that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people Gen 17 1â— Instances whereof in Augustine and others are many cited by Chamier Pausir Tom 4 l 3 c. 3 Sect 39 40 41. And they thought the Infant dying baptized was infallibly saved whether believers child or not As for others they denied their entring into the kingdom of heaven as I shew you in my Examen part 1. Sect 7 8 9 10. I have often considered Zech 11 10 and I conceive the sense as Mr C. makes it of the covenant of grace in respect at least of the externall administration thereof amongst them as verse 9 and their externall right in that his covevenant to be very vain For if it be meant of the covenant of grace then it is as much as to say That I might not write my Lawes in their heart forgive their sins c. as I â—romised them Jer. 31.33 and then God should break his promise theâ—e should be falling from the covenant of grace c. If the sense be of the covenant of grace in respect of externall administration thereof amongst them and their externall right in that his covenanâ— then it is as if he had said That I might take away Circumcision the Passover and the rest of the Temple-service and the peoples right to them For what is the externall administration of the covenant of grace but the seals as they call them and the rest of the service of the Sanctuary Now this neither agrees to the phrase for Circumcision is never called Gods covenant with all the people and to break circumcision what is it but either to draw up the fore-skin and to forbid circumcision If this be referred to the time of Christs coming this had not been a prediction of an evill to them but of a benefit to be eased of that yoak verse 9 mentions not externall administration of the covenant of grace or externall right there o. But whenever it was accomplished whether at the siege of Jerusalem or at some other time it was the taking away of some who might be their protectors whereby they were exposed to destruction which whether they were the Maccabees or some others may be doubted However it is so frigid an interpretation to interpert it as Mr C. doth that methinks he should be ashamed to blot paper with it The Covenant ch 10. whether it were that Gen. 17. or that Exod. 19. or 24. or Deut. 29. â—t is certain it is meant not of the Covenant of grace common to all believers Gentiles or Jews but of the covenant which he made with the Israelitish nation which he brake by taking away their Leaders whether Governors or Teachers Maccabees or some other and so exposing them to ruin by the Grecian or Roman Lords or some other Psal. 44.17 Dan. 11.30 31 32 33. to deal falsly in Gods Covenant and to forsake the holy Covenant and to do wickedly against the Covenant do not intimate that Mr. C. would infer that there are some said
an abuse in Stapleton by Dr. Rainold Apol. Thess. Sect 20. to interpret the flock of God redeemed by his blood of any reprobates Of 2 Pet. 2.1 I have spoken before An externall being in the covenant of grace quoad homines by the parties profession I never denied but an externall being in the covenant of grace of believers infants by vertue of the parents faith in the New Testament I still deny Mr C. takes upon him to answer my Dilemma Examen pag. 52. and tells me The covenant is theirs externally and quoad homines considered as invested with Church-covenant and in reference to covenant-ordinances whereof they are capable as of old they were of Circumcision and are now of baptism Thus it is theirs at present in respect of the visible faith and interest of the parent or parents in the covenant and for the future it 's theirs in the further grace of the covenant upon condition of their believing if they do live to years of discretion Answer The position I intended to prove by the Dilemma was set down page 48. That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen 17 7. in these words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is not made to a believer and his naâ—urall seed to which Mr C. his answer is by telling me The covenant is theirs externally c. which is to answer nothing to the Argument which proceeded against the asserting Gods Covenant Gen. 17.7 as a promise of saving grace to belong to a believers naturall seed Nor doth he prove but dictate that Gen. 17.7 Ther 's a promise concerning the externall covenant or to any Gentile believers naturall seed or that there is any mention of Church-covenant or that â—itle to Church-ordinâ—nces as Baptism and Circumcision is derived from interest in the promise Gen 17.7 Or that the parents visible faith or interest in the covenant makes it the childrens or that the covenant is such an ambulatory or revocable contract as to be the infants for the present in respect of the parents faith but for the future it 's theirs in the further grace of the the covenant upon condition of believing if they live to years of discretion These Dictates are hatched in Mr. C. his nest but have nothing in the Text for them nor doth he attempt to prove them in that chapter which is termed The Explication of Gen. 17.7 c. In like manner he dictates in that which follows I had said if the covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not â—f he do not keep it then he breaks his word which is blasphemy if he do keep it then it follows that all the posterity of believers are saved contrary to Rom. 9.13 Or if some are not saved though they be in the covenant of grace there may be Apostasie of persons in the covenant of grace In answer to which he tels me God may be said absolutely to covenant with believers seed collectively and specifically considered and yet all the individuall children not saved It is absolutelely made and made good that that sort of persons shall be and are saved by virtue of Gods covenant for some of them are infallibly saved the covenant is to the indefinite collective seed or children in respect of internall saving interest else none of them dying Infants should be saved Whereto I reply The promise is to Abrahams seed Gen. 17. â— But that the promise is to be a God to any Gentile believers naturall indefinite collective seed in respect of the internall saving interest as such is not true The promise is not made indefinitely but definitely to Ahrahams seed under whom none but believers of the Gentiles or elect persons are meant nor is it made specifically to a sort of men but to such and such numericall persons as were Abrahams seed by nature or grace Nor is it made collectively to any of them as part of the whole number of Gentile-believers naturall seed but as Abrahams seed by grace and if any of them be elect it is made also to Gentile unbelievers naturall seed under the same consideration It is true some of the believing Gentiles seed dying infants are saved nor can we say that none of the unbelievers infants dying in infancy are saved notwithstanding the Arguments brought to prove their perishing But none of them are saved by virtue of a promise made to that sort of persons that is believers naturall children for there is no such promise but by vertue of Gods election conformable to which is the promise of saving grace Gen. 17.7 as the Apostle expresly determines Rom. 9.6 7.8 and consequently as election is of individuall persons not of a collective indefinite specificall seed as Mr. C. speaks so is the covenant M. C. goes on thus Supposing they are the Israel of God a part of the elect seed yet the means of saving effect in and upon them is the word of the Covenant Rom. 9.6 It 's through the effectuall word and engaged truth of God that that part of the Church are savingly purged Eph. 5.25 26. Answ. I grant this to be true yet conceive that Eph. 5.25 26. speaks of the word of promise not barely as made but also as accomplished in Christs performance and published by preaching whereupon baptism follows by both which Christ sanctifies and purgeth his Church savingly by the one as the means by the other as the sign He adds The covenant is to the individual seed of all and each of them in respect of externall interest and yet many of them not saved Answer This is an exposition which is without proof or example of the like 1. That where God saith I will be a God to Abrahams seed he means other believers even Gentiles naturall seed 2 That he means this in respect of externall interest onely to some 3. That some of those to whom he promiseth to be a God according to the covenant of grace in Christ may not be saved 4 That by Abrahams seed he meaneth in respect of saving effects the indefinite collective seed of Gentâ—le-believers so as that it is onely made good to that sort of persons which were true if none but Isaac and Iacob were saved For if the promise of salvation be onely to the sort of persons it is made good in one or two of believers seed but in respect of externall interest to the individual seed all and each of them yea though the parents be but hypocrites and not savingly in the covenant of grace themselves He goes on Nor yet is Gods faithfulness impeached or impaired nor need the faith of believers be shaken if this or that child should prove live and die wicked the force of the covenant is not to be measured by the fatall miscarriage of many of Abrahams Church-seed Answer Neither is Gods faithfulness impeached nor need the faith of believers be shaken though all their chidren die wicked It is not true
any gracious parent concerning his naturall children It is true Rom. 9.6 it is said the word took effect and this I deny not to be the word of promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then it is expresly said v. 7 8. that this seed of Abraham is not his children by natural generation but the speciall choice seed whether they were his seed according to nature or ingraffed there 's not a word of the efficacy of this covenant by the lively faith of the parents but by vertue of Gods election v. 11. The Text Ephes. 5.26 seems to me to contain not onely the word of promise as sanctifying or purifying the Church but also the word of narration contained in the Gospel as Luke 1.2 Acts 8.4 10.36.44 Joh. 17.8.17 Rom. 10.8 preached and believed not by the parents but the parties purified Acts 15.9 who as they hear the word and believe so are baptized upon their believing It is true that the Jewes hereafter to be ingraffed again are said according to the election to be beloved for the Fathers Rom. 11.28 But this is meant of the Jewes onely and it is not at all meant of the immediate parents of those Jewes reingraffed for they doubtless will be Infidels but of the ancient Fathers Abraham Isaac Jacob out of the remembrance of their following God and Gods covenant to them which were both singular and therefore cannot be verrified of every believers natural children as it is there meant and shall be verified of them 2. There 's not a proof for the other part of the comparison that there is any such validity in the Covenant invested with Church-Covenant albeit unworthyly oftentimes held forth by the parents to beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God and to his spouse the Church visible For Ezek. 16 8. mentions Gods covenant which he swear not their's by which they became his and those whose sons and daughters were born to him v. 20. are said to sacrafice them to be devoured had caused them to be slain and deliverd them to pass through the fire for them Mr. C. confesseth they were Idolatrous members and the text mentions their Idolatry to be of the highest kind even the sacraficing their children and if these were in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenanant and did thereby beget an external filial relation to God and to his spouse the visible Church then may the worst of men even open Idolatrers that offer their children to Moloch and sacrafice them to the Devil be in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenant and therby in those whom God hates and who go a whoring after Idols yea the Devils in a most horrid manner there may be validity in this horrid estate to beget an external filial relation unto God to his spouse the visible Church for their children Horrendum dictu The meaning of the text and the impertinency of its allegation by the Assembly by Mr. C. and others hath been often shewed Jerem. 13.11 makes nothing to the purpose God in the wilderness had made the whole house of Israel to cleave to him in the Covenant at mount Sinai and by his special deliverances and providences for them What is this to prove that the Idolatrous posterity of that people are by the Covenant clothed with Church-covenant held to God they and theirs in external Church-communion until either that church be devorced from God oâ— the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of a Church covenant privilege 3. were the first part of the comparison proved that the Covenant laid hold on 〈◊〉 the lively faith of the parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect seed yet there is not any liklyhood that the other part should be true that a bare dissembled profession should make such an external relation to God and his Church as if because Peters faith and confession obtains from God a special privilege Judas his profession must obtain something of God for his children though he were a Devil If there be strength in these dictates of Mr. C. their 's weakness is nothing The answers to the objections of I. S. proceed upon a conceit of a relative grace and implicit calling and of in-being in Christ without either Christs spirit or faith or profession of faith which are things that have no Scripture grounds The absurdity objected against his opinion that it entails grace to generation that it upholds a national Church â—e puts off only thus He knowes we in N. E. which hold the one yet do not maintain the other in the usual sence of a national Church But this shewes not how he will acquit his doctrine from maintaining that by consequence which is disavowed by those of N. E. For if there be such a covenant and Church covenant now as there was Deut. 29.10 11 12. and Ezek 16.20.21.22 of validity to beget an external filial relation to God and to his visible spouse the Church it cannot be denied but that the worst Idolaters even Papists are visible Church-members and by consequent the whole nation elder and â—onger are in the Church Which what it makes less than such a national Church as was of the Jews I understand not SECT XLII Animadversions on Sect. 7 of the same chap. shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external Interest therein IN the seaventh Sect. Mr. C sets down this conclusion that the body of the Jewish Church was under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church Covenant in respect of external interest therein In which as almost in all his writings about this point there 's much ambiguity He neither sheweth whom he means by the body of the Jewish Church whether every Jew or some only and if some who those are whether the most part or the chiefest nor what he means by the Covenant of grace what promise they are under nor how they are under it Nor doth explain what he means by Church-Covenant or investing with it nor what is the external interest therein which they have nor how they are under the Covenant of grace as invested with Church covant in respect of external interest therein and not with respect to internal interest For my part so far as I am able to discern his meaning this is it that all the Jews from the promise made to Abraham I wil be thy God the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 have this privilege that all should be accounted members of that Church and the males circumcised But I know not how it comes to pass this author either affects or it is his vein to use ambiguous expressions when he might use plain and to talk in a new phrases hard to be understood of the Covenant seal Church-seed c. And not to explain his conclusions afore
quatenùs he may know that Scapula puts quatenùs for the first signification of it What I said that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not only a causal particle but also a restrictive is not denied by Mr. C. But he thinks it is not good sense to say according as he is a believer but rather it is to be taken as a reason of the former I confess it would not be good sense to say according that is after the proportion that he is a believer but thus it is good sense to make it to note the reason with restriction and so our Translators do when they render it for so much And this is confirmed in that if it be expounded that salvation did come to his house that is his wife children servants for this only reason or cause because he was a Son of Abraham in that he was a believer it may be gathered thence that a mans whole house or posterity may be saved barely by his believing To this Mr. C. saith No but as Acts 16.31 upon his believing they shall come in the Gospel-way in the Covenant road and ordinary means of salvation But that this is a false Exposition both places shew That Luke 19.9 must needs be meant otherwise than of the means of salvation with which Zachâ—us might not have been saved For besides that to his being a Son of Abraham not a Son of Abrahams Covenant as Mr. C. speaks though that be true also but a follower of Abrahams Faith salvation is certainly annexed nor had it been so joyous if he had not meant salvation it self it is put out of all doubt that he means salvation it self by verse 10. where he gives this reason why he said salvation was come to him though some murmured at his going in to him for saith he the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost therefore he had both sought and did save Zachaeus who was lost And for the other place it is as frivolous to expound Acts 16.31 of the means of salvation For 1. Pauls Answer is of that of which the Jaylour asked him else he had deluded him by his Answer but the Question was not What may I do to be put in the road ordinary means of salvation the Gospel way But What may I do to escape the wrath due to me 2. That salvation is meant which was consequent on his believing but the ordinary means of salvation was not consequent but antecedent that which followed on his believing in Christ was the certainty of salvation Yea to interpret thus Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved that is thou shalt hear the Word be Baptized c. is so frigid and sapless and interpretation as no considerate man sure no Interpreter besides Mr. C. that I know did ever give a sense of it But Mr. C. tells me Nor is this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation or the covenant and promise it self unusuall in Scripture The salvation which Christ and his Apostles preached and those Heb. 2.3 neglected was not barely salvation it self but the promises holding the same forth this was that mercy and riches and salvation also which came to the Gentiles as rejected by the Jewes Rom. 11.11 12 17 19 30 verses compared So Esay 1 6 8 Gods salvation is his promise or covenant on which their salvation did depend Calvin in locum 2 Sam. 23.5 David speaking of his house or posterity which albeit it were not so orient then yet God had made a covenant with him scil in reference to his house ordered in all things and sure And this scil this covenant with me and my house is all my salvation and all my desire albeit he maketh my house not to grow or flourish in such a sort this covenant then was his salvation objectivè causaliter or instrumentaliter Answ. If this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation or the covenant and promise it self were usuall in Scripture yet it could not be the sense Luke 19.9 or Acts 16.31 whether we understand it of the outward means of salvation the Word and Sacraments or of the promise of salvation but must be understood of saving by justification as Tit. 3.5 6 7. For neither is the outward means of salvation nor the promise of salvation consequent upon being a son of Abraham and believing as salvation is in those places 2. Yet in none of the places alleged by Mr C. is salvation put for being in the Gospel way the ordinary means of salvation competent to infants And for the covenant or promise of salvation it self he dares not avoch it to be Gospel that all the infants of inchurched believers have interest in it and therefore if salvation Luke 19.9 were put for the covenant or promise of salvation yet it would not prove that it belongs to every son of Abrahams whole house but Mr C. must limit it to the elect as I do Yet let us consider his Texts that it may appear with how little heed he brings Texts as if he never examined their pertinency but heaped them together whether to the purpose or not They are said to neglect salvation Heb. 2.3 Ergo salvation is taken for the outward means of salvation competent to infants or the covenant of salvation Nay rather salvation is taken for salvation as it was preached and offered not for the means of salvation competent to infants nor for the promise of salvation but for salvation it self neglected in that they did not take hold of it by believing and obeying the doctrine of the Gospel Acts 28.28 salvation is said to be sent to the Gentiles and that they would not hear it But salvation there is the doctrine of salvation not competent to infants who could not hear it Rom. 11.11 12 17 19 30 is not meant either of the bare outward means of salvation or the covenant of salvation only much less the outward means competent to infants Esâ—y 51.6 8 the term Salvation is not taken for the bare outward means of salvation competent to infants of inchurched believers If Salvation 2 Sam. 23.5 did note outward means of salvation because it is said This covenant is all my salvation desire should note outward means of desire because it is said This covenant is all my desire I grant the convenant is termed his salvation Causaliter or Instrumentaliter and his desire objestivè The covenant everlasting in all things ordered and sure was made with David in reference to his house not in respect of outward covenant interest to the infants of his house it 's a wonder to me that such a man as Mr C. should â—o dote especially after the publishing of Mr Cottons book of the Covenant on that Text but in respect of the great promise of raising Christ out of his loins Acts 2.30 or as it is Luke 1.69 Raising up a Horn of salvation for his people in the house of his servant David and this that is
of the Israelites when brought out of Egypt and then God said live to them when they had been ready to perish in Canaan first and then in Egypt by oppression and after brought them to mount Sinai and entered into the covenant of the Law which Mr. C. â—ndeavoring to apply to an Ecclesiastical external priviledge of Gentile believers infants in the time of the Gospel doth toto Coelo errare It is neither said there to Jerusalâ—m then live nor Micah 7.20 that the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob God did both swear to other Jew fathers of families or that there is mention of pardon of sins externally made over to them or pleaded there for that end v. 18 19 And though I deny not that in respect of the covenant made with Iacob at Bethel Gen. 35.9 10 11 12 13 14 15. God is said there to speake with Israel in Hoseah his dayes Hos. 12.2 yet I deny there is a word that saith that external Church interest of inchurched Gentile believers infants is Gospel Nor is there any thing 2 Sam. 23.4 5 about external covenant-Church-interest but of the peculiar promise made to David of the continuing the kingdome to his posterity which having its full accomplishment in Christ Acts. 2.30 was indeed in that respect the covenant of grace and was so believed both by David and all believers before Christ that it should be done and now by all believers that it is done But this promise was made of Davids house only not of every particular believers and therefore it is impertinently brought to prove that it is Gospel that to every believers house God hath made such a Covenant or that the children of every believer have an external covenant interest with the parent As for the instances of Eve and Lamech concerning Seth and Noah Gen. 4.25 and 5.29 ther 's no mention of any Covenant nor that these were Covenant babes much less of a Covenant belonging to all believing parents with their children but an acknowledgment in the former that God had appointed Eve another seed insteed of Abel whom Cain slew in respect of the preisthood say some others in respect of propogating mankind others because of Christ to come from him in the other a prophesy of Noah that he should comfort them concerning their worke and toil of their hands because of the ground which the Lord had cursed which is concieved by some as meant of the invention of plowing vide Christoph. Cartwright in locum the new Annot. follow that sense But were it true Eve had respect in that speech Gen. 4.25 to the promise Gen. 3.15 and that she believed God would continue the Church in Seth's posterity and that thence came the distinctions of the sons of God and daughters of men Gen. 6.1 2. and Lamech believed that Noah should be a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world should be destroyed yet all this is noteâ—ing to the point Mr. C. should prove that it is Gospel that the children of every inchurched Gentile-believer have an externall covenant church-interest there being in those Texts not a word of such an externall covenant Church-interest nor of any generall promise to them but onely a mention of speeches which had their rise from particular Revelations about those persons which are there mentioned Psalm 102.25 26 27 there 's not a word of the externall Federall Church state of inchurched Gentile Church-believers But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon and were the prayer of the Iews as v. 13 14 makes it probable then it seems to be meant as the new Annotations on Psa. 102.28 thus The children of thy Servants shal continue This is the literal as I may call it immortality proposed in the Law to them that fear of God their surviving in their posterity If of the Saints prophecying of the calling of the Gentiles or as some would of the reingraffing of the Iewes that Paraphrase of Junius may be right â— Vera germana Ecclesiae tuae membra conservabuntur in aeternum virtute tua tibi curae futura sunt Take iâ— of whomsoever the words may be verified it mentions no such thing as externall federall Church-interest but continuance and establishment before God that is as Ainsworth notes as much as so long as God doth dure meaning for ever For assurance whereof they had a word of faith to wit some revelation of God though no such covenant as Mr C. imagines intâ—tuling children of inchurched Gentile-believers to externall Church-interest Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federall interest of believers infants to be Gospel because from the beginning and he begins with Gen. 3.15 to prove that it was held as Gospel that the Species of the infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the Verge of the Covenant of Grace as if infants of believers were a Species and not Individuals or that it were denied that some infants were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace And then he dictates without proof that Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind or if as a Church more likely as the seminall invisible than as the visible Church He interprets The Seed of the Woman not onely of the principall Seed Christ in and by whom it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church-seed also whom the same promise did comprehend But I would know of Mr C. whether Cain were not her Church-seed who by Mr C. his Dictates was the infant of inchurched believers For Adam and Eve were eyed saith Mr C. as a seminall visible Church If so then it is true of Cain that he should bruize the Serpens head as Eves church-seed which how he did unless being of the wicked one and slaying his brother as is said of him 1 John 3.12 be bruising the Serpents head I understand not Many Interpreters comprehend Cain under the Serpents seed but none I have met with comprehend him or any reprobate under the Womans Seed mystically understood There are Interpreters that understand the promise Gen. 3.15 as made to mankind in respect of the naturall Serpent and the best of Christs destroying the works of the Divel as John speaks 1 Epist. 3.8 and others of the elect overcoming Satan and treading him under their feet Rom. 16.20 But none do I find who understand it of infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest Believers it is true are called Abrahams seed but no where true believers as such are called Eves Church-seed nor doth Eve by faith from thence thus interpret the scope of the promise Gen. 4.25 26. And if infants be meant by the womans seed Gen. 3.15 in a spirituall sense of overcoming the Divel yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby sith no other overcome the Divell So that it is so far from being true
to which I deny 1. the Major or sequele that if Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in their Church estate before they can make any personall confession or profession of faith in the covenant yet then are Abrahams Church-seed then is it Gospel that the promises belong to them Nor is it in substance or circumstance the Apostles Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his seed are the promises made For though it is granted that it is Gospel that to Abraham and his seed the promises are made yet it is utterly false that theâ—e is meant a seed of Abraham who are neither elect nor true believers but onely the naturall children of Gentile inchurched believers yea of Gentile visible inchurched professors of Faith whom Mr C. in a new language of his own without Scripture calls Abrahams Church-seed yea the Text is so manifestly against it that I wonder Mr C. could imagine any Reader would receive his Dictates about this Text. For the Apostle expresly limits the promises to Christ as the seed of Abraham and whether Christ be understood personally or mystically as Beza and others yet by the Seed are not meant the fictitious Church-seed of Abraham to wit the naturall children even of infants oâ— visible inchurched Gentile-believers or visible professors of Faith but true believers or elect persons who alone are members of Christ mysticall And the promises are of the Spirit through faith v. 14. the inheritance v. 18. life and righteousness v. 21 22 which are made to none but true believers or elect persons To which I add that externall covenant-interest if there were such is never in Scripture termed the Gospel no not in those who rightly have it as true believers but Christs dying for our sins and justification by faith in him 2. I also deny the minor that the Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in Church-estate before they can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the Covenant yet then are Abrahams Church-seed Mr. C. takes upon him to prove the minor 1. in those of Abrahams loins in the elect seed I should think saith he it should not be questioned but yet it hath by some that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant c. And by such other speeches of our Adversaries in this point the covenant-right not only of the individual Infants of believers but the Covenant estates of that species and sort of persons is wholly denyed and so since it 's evident and acknowledged that some are elected of that sort yet it 's denied that they have part in the word of Gods covenants so that if they die in Infancy as many of the choise seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob did c. Yet that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied contrary to that principle Rom 9.6 But more hereof anon but Rom. 9 7 8 9 10 11. is so clear for it I wonder any deny it Isaac and Jacob are made precedential instances of interest not only of election but of Gods calling unto the fellowship of his free covenant without respect either to their desire or indeavour of it personally v. 16. Answ. There are sundry reasons which make me conceive that in this and many other passages in this argument Mr. C. aimed at my self Mr. Robert Baillee minister of Glasgow in Scotland had in the 2. part of his Diswasive intituled Anabaptism ch 4. pag. 92. charged me with spoiling all Infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace and denying all right to the new Covenant to Iewish Infants till in their ripe years they became actuall believers From which false criminations I have vindicated my self in the Addition to my Apology printed at London 1652. Mr. C. here tels of some who speak as if they held that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant that wholly deny the covenant estate of that sort of persons though they acknowledg some of them are elected of that sort yet it 's denied they have part in the word of Gods covenant and if they die in Infancy that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied them I have reason to conceive that these are calumnies of others sure I am if theyrae meant of my self they are calumnies and so shewed in my Books before cited and in other of my writings From which that I may stand free I further express my self distinctly thus 1. That by in the Covenant of grace I mean the promise of righteousness and external life by Christ Jesus 2. That I mean by being in the Covenant of grace or belonging to it the having this promise made to them by God whether Gen. 17.7 or Gen. 3.15 according to the speech of the Apostle Tit. 1.2 that God promiseth eternal life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the times of the ages that is afore any age of man was past 3. that all the elect of God whether children of believers or unbelievers dying in Infancy or at the riper age are in this covenant of grace that is God hath promised eternal life to them by Christ they are given to Christ to save are children of the promise Rom. 9.8 4. That all these are Abrahams seed meant in the promise Gen. 17.7 though not actual believers 5. That all these have Christs meâ—â—â—s and the spirits inbeing in them afore they dye as ordinary means of salvation 6. That none but these elect persons have the said covenant of grace or promise of righteousness and life by Châ—ist made to them 7. That no where visible profâ—ssers of faith is in the Covenant of grace 8. That the natural child of a believer no not the naturall child of Abraham the Father of believers was or is in the covenant of grace as their child or barely by vertue of their faith but onely the elect of them by vertue of their election by God 9. That these elect persons though elected and having the promise made to them yet have not the things promised if of years of understanding till they do believe they are not justified till then and so are not actuall partakers of the covenant of grace or not actually therein 10. That no where in Scripture is the naturall child of a Gentile-believer or a visible professor of Christian faith termed Abrahams Seed and the term of Abrahams Church-seed applied to such is a novel expression not grounded on Scripture 11. That the formall proper and adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was not his being in the covenant made with Abraham nor is the reason why any should be baptized bareâ—ly his interest in the covenant of grace but the command of God in the one appointing males of eight dayes old of Abraahms house and Proselytes thereto to be circumcised in the other discipâ—es by their own profession of faiâ—h in Châ—ist to be baptized 12. That the use of the terms Being in the
think it is not a condition of the promise v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. to wit of restoring from captivity upon their seeking of God But if it be made a condition of the promise v. 6. yet it is not a condition competent to Infants nor is it there made to any but the Israelites and to them onely at the time of their return from captivity in reference to their re-establishing in the land of Canaan and so was not common to them all much less to all believing Gentiles at all times It is untrue that the promise of saving grace is made to any onely externally or that it takes not effect in all to whom it is made or that any such thing is meant Rom. 3.3 9.6 7 8. though I deny not that there were many promises to Israel after the flesh which being indefinite in respect of persons and conditionall upon obedience to the lawes given by Moses took not effect in all the Israelites though in generall propounded and therefore notwithstanding some attained them not yet the faith of God was not without effect But all this is nothing to the objection concerning Gods covenant of saving grace in Christ which is not shewed to be made to any but the saved nor shewed to be in respect of the persons taken into covenant conditional 3 Saith Mr. C. This Argument supposeth that one cannot be within the Covenant of saving grace externally but they must be in a saving estate the contrary whereunto appeareth Concl. 3. And it is said of sundry illegitimate Jewish Children that they were within the covenant of saving grace namely externally for the Author cannot mean other And yet of all such who will say they were all in a saving estate Even Esau's Birthright was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it was a Church blessing as well as a Naturall and Civill Ans. That any one is in the covenant of saving grace onely externally is not proved before My words Examen pag. 78. which Mâ— C. seems to mean â—hâ—t Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar Jephie of Gilead and many others were within the covenant of saving graces and Church-privileges are not meant of the covenant of saving grace exâ—ernally onely but also internally Esau's birth-right was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it is that which Jacob was not born to for it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the right of the first born which Jacob had not but by purchase and blessing nor is it denied to be a Church-blessing but that it was the spirituall blessing promised to Abrahams seed to wit justification and salvation from the covenant of saving grace I do not conceive for that was not limited to the first born as the birth-right was and therefore it seâ—ms to have been either the superiority or the inhâ—ritance of Canaan or the descent of Christ and the Chuch of God from him to which I most incline the losse of whâ—ch being a great losse and having with it the privation of interest in the covenant of saving grace he being hâ—ted of God made Isaac tremble and Esau cry and were a 〈◊〉 instance to set before the Cristian Hebrews lest thâ—y through prophane underâ—â—â—â—ing Christ fail of the grace of God Mr. C. adds 3. Object But saith â— S. the Covenant of grace being a Covenant there must be a mutuall agreement betwixt the Covenanters and so knowledge and consideration of the terms thereof and restipulation as in mens covenants Henry Den a little differently maketh a necessity of the persons entering into covenant with God scil by faith unto covenant-right and not meerly Gods entering into Covenant with the creature for so he entered into covenant with the Beasts c. Gen. 9 10. Answer To which I answer the covenant of grace is as well a Testament 1 Cor. 11. Heb 9. Now a Testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without their knowledge nor do any usâ— to deny a Childs right in the Testators will because it was taken in amongst other Legacies in the bequeathed Legacies before it understood the same Nor will it be denied in the case of the elect seed the choice parties in Gods Covenant Gen. 17. That they many of them dying Infants without actuall knowledge were not therefore children of the promise or that that solemn Covenant Deut. 29.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30.6 7 8 9 10 c. with that people wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts that therefore the Covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions the contrary being there expressed No rather it sufficed that the childrens covenant-estate being the parents privilege whence the encouragements to Abraham to walk with God Gen. 17.1 c. from that amongst other encouragements that God would become his Seeds God also v. 7. and so Deut. 29 and 30. amoongst other encouragements to the parents that is one v. 6. that God will do so for their seed also yea the children being reckoned as in their parents as Levi paid Tythes in Abraham c. Yea the externall avouching a Covenant may be of God being owned as the childrenâ— Deut. â—6 16 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the parents covenant duty whence called the Covenant or the covenant parties covenant part or duty as well as the token of Gods Covenant Gen. 9.7 9 10 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as well upon their childrens part as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Cvenant-condition and Bond too after imitation of their Father Abrahams purposeâ— S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenanâ— yea the bastard children of Judah and Gilead and others are acknowledged to be in the Covenant of saving grace which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge or faith or the like Answ. The Objection as it is not mine so I might let it and the answer passe but that there are some things in the answer to it that do requiâ—e consideration In the first part of this Review Sect. 5. answering Mr. Stephens his argumenâ—s for the Convertibility as he caâ—ls iâ— of a word of promise and a word of command from the general nature of Covenants between men and men I had said the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—o not alwayes note a mutuall covenant and mutuall performancâ—s and instanced in Gen. 9.10 and said there is a single covenant as well as muâ—uall and further added that if it be true that such a convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the generall nature of Covenants then there can be no Covenant between God and Infâ—nt 〈◊〉 Infant cannot contract If any say the Parents
do 〈◊〉 act for them to I say Be it so then according to this arguing they should also seal oâ— be sealed for them Hereupâ—n Mr Bl. Vindic Fâ—d Append. pag. 470. taks occasion to answer part of this maintaining pag. 479. that there is a mutuall contract and mutual performances to which persons are engaged not onely usually in covenants but in all covenants and that iâ— is of the general nature of Covenants that there should be such a convertibility as that both must if not seal yet contrast or perform and where a Seal is vouchsafed must accept of it And to the allegation of Gen. 9.9 10. answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken improperly as Job 5.23 Whereto I reply That it must needs be confessed that Covenant Job 5.23 must needs be understood improperly for the stones of the field cannot properly covenant that is promise any thing who are there said to be in covenant with Man But Gen. 9.9 10. where God is said to establish his covenant with all living I see not why it should be taken improperly sith covenanting doth properly agree to God who doth in proper sense promise and in improper sense it would not be rightly said of God that he did not make a Conant but as it were make a covenant or do some other thing which is resembled by making a Covenant which must be the explication of that phrase if God be conceived to speak improperly If Mr Bl. do conceive any Tropicall impropriety of speech in that expression I suppose he cannot reduce it to any Trope in Rhetorick but that he will maâ— the sense of the words And if Gods Covenant with Noah and his Sons be properly understood v. 9. I see not any reason why the same term wiâ—hout repetition applied to beasts as the object of the Covenant câ—n be taken any otherwise than properly Besides this Covenant Gen. 9.15 seems to be called Gods Oath Isa. 54.9 and therefore is properly taken Nor do I know any Interpreter who understands it improperly Paraeus hence gathers Foedus hoc est universale Dei cum omnibus creaturis terrestribus est absolutum non conditionaâ—um And the New Annotations of Mr. Lâ—y on Gen. 9 10 have it thus Some allege this place against the Anabaptists and thus it may serve to refute this fancy viz. that the Covenant of God may be made with and the seal of the Covenant applied to creatures that have not the use of reason which they deny in denying the administration of Baptism to them Which passâ—ge although it have this falshood that we deny that the Covenant of God may be maâ—e with or to Infants yet it appears that they who speak thus understand Gods covenant Gen. 9.10 properly The promise Heb. 8.10 of writing Gods Lawes in their hearts is called the Covenant unto which no covenant is prerequired and to take away the evasion as if it were not a covenant properly so called but a prophecy or but a part of the covenant there being other promises which prerequire conditions it is to be observed that it is not onely called the better Covenant v. 6. as being made a Law upon better promises and having a better Priesthood to execute it but also it is opposed to the Old Covenanâ— and as coming in its stead and therefore if in the one it be properly meant it is so in the other and Jerem. 32. â—0 the promise that He will not turn away from them to do them good but will put his fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from him is his Covenant The Covenant to Abraham and his seâ—d is called Promises Gal 3.26 which shews that promisâ—s on one part may bâ— called â— Covenant And though in Deâ—ds indented there are mutuall promises yet in Deeds Poll as the Lawyers call them I think a person is said to covenant to another though there be no condition or promise required of him to whom the Deed is made As for that which Mr. Bl. saith Where there is a Seal vouchsafed the party to whom the promise is must accept of it it is true if it be required but it is expected that it should be shewed that God ever required the Infants of believers to be baptized in their own persons To return to Mr. C. Most of the things he answers are granted or else examined before but the chiefest thing in the answer is denied to wit that Parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and their passive reception of the Covenant-condition and Bond to after imitation of their Father Abrahams faith and obedience is or may be termed the Infants restipulation intituling to Baptism In the answer to the next Objection Mr. C seems to charge us rather than himself to block up the ordinary way to regeneration and to debar believers children from the ordinary means of their chief good by denying them interest in the Word of Promise the which is such a means c. But therin Mr C. his charge is but vain For the word of Promise which is the means of regeneration is not the covenant of externall privileges but the promise of saving grace in Christ which we debar them of no more than Mr. C. doth And when he denies that he makes every believer to be Abraham sure he must do so if he expound Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee Abraham that is to every believer and to thy seed that is every believers seed And when he grants that God doth not promise such a particular Land now as to Abraham and that the multiplying of Abrahams c. was of peculiar consideration he must grant that the Covenant made with Abraham had peculiar domestick promises not common to all believers which is all one as to say it was a mixt covenant and that circumcision had some reason from the promises in the covenant which were pâ—culiar to Abrams naturall posterity which is sufficient to prove there is not par ratio or the same reason of baptâ—zing infants as for circumcising them I find no where any but Abraham a Covenant-Father as Mr. C. would have it no where doth God say he would be a God to Isaac and Jacob and to their seed Nor is it said Rom. 11.16.28 that they were covenant Fathers to their posterity nor Jesse a Covenant-root to David Isai. 11.1 And by Mr C. his Doctrine inchurched believers are made Abrahams sith it makes the promâ—ses to be to them and their seed which is ascribed to Abraham onely Gal 3.16 Luke 1.55 But Mr. C. objects That the Apostle calls all those inchurched Jewes of old our Fathers Fathers to him and to the Gentiles Corinthian members 1 Corinth 10.1 c. To which I answer They could not be called the Corinthians naturall parents being not descended from them nor their Covenant-fathers for they were many of them such as God was not well pleased with v. 6. and the Corinâ—hians desceâ—ded not from them and therefore derived no exâ—ernall
Church-privilege from them therefore either it must be understood that they were called Ancestors of the Corinthian Christians who are called Idolaters chap. 12.2 either in the sense we call any in foregoing generations our Fathers though we are not descended from them by naturall generation or else by the Figure of communication wherein that is spoken as common to others with the persons mentioned which is not common indeed but either ouâ— of familiarity indulgence desire to ingratiate or such like reason we attribute it to them to whom it is not to be attributed as Paul Ephes. 2.2 3. Peter 1 Pet. 4.3 which was not true of them Philip. 3.6 Acts 23.1 but meant of the Gentiles to whom they wrot Col. 2.13 Gal. 2.15 and so Our Fathers is not of you Corinthians but of me and Softheues 1 Cor. 1.1 or by an enallage of persons as when Paul saith 1 Thess. 4.17 we which are alive it is not to be conceived to be true of himself or of any of the Thessalonians to whom he then wrot but it is We for They the first for the third person But saith Mr. C. If Isaac and Jacob were not such Fathers to their seed also as was Abraham in Covenant and Church-respects how then are the Jewes said to be beloved for their Fathers sakes Surely it was not for their sakes as men and naturall Fathers but as spirituall and Covenant-fathers Rom. 11.26 28. compared yea the Covenant is expresly made in those terms to Isaac to his seed to Jacob and to his seed Gen. 26.3 4 5 28 13 14. And so though they were Abrahams Church and Covenant seed yet Covenant Fathers to others and so Gentile inchurched believers are Abrahams Church-seed yet Covenant-fathers to their Children The term Root and first Fruits and the term Fathers Rom. 11.16.28 are not proved to be the same The Fathers it 's not denied to comprehend Isaac and Jacob as well as Abraham But they are called Fathers there in respect of the naturall generaâ—ion of the Israelites to be re-ingraffed not as Covenant-Fathers propagating externall Church privileges even to Gentile inchurched believers For they are there reckoned as the Israelites progenitors not the Gentile inchurched believers progenitors Yet I deny not that God hath reference in that passage to his covenant made with them and his love to them and so the Jewes now broken off yet are beloved by God with an intention to restore their posterity out of remembrance of his ancient amity and covenant with their forefathers which cannot be verified of the Gentile inchurched believers in respect of their children Neither Gen. 26.3 4 5 nor Gen. 28.13 14 is either of the Evangelicall promises made to Abraham Gen. 17.5 A Father of many Nations have I made thee or that v. 7. to be a God to him and his seed made either to Isaac Gen. 26.3 4 5 or Jacob Gen. 28.13 14. though the promises of multiplying their Seed blessing them giving them the land of Canaan in their Seed blessing all the Nations or Families of the earth be there mentioned which with sundry passages of the Apostle Rom. 4.11 12 16 17. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3 16 29 and other places assure me those Evangelicall promises Gen. 17.5.7 were made to Abraham peculiarly neither as a Patriarch out of a reason common to him with other Patriarks nor as a believer â—ut of a reason common to him wiâ—h other believers but out of a peculiar consideration of â—im either as Father of believers by his exemplary faith or as a person elected by God to have the covenant instated in him and his seed As for Mr. C. his answer to the objection from Rom. 4.16 if that Text prove not that all that are Abrahams seed are actuall believers yet iâ— proves that the promise is sure to all that are Abrahams seed by actuall believing as he did and consequently are saved To his qustion If all members of the visible Church be not Abrahams seed what right have they to the seal of the covenant made to Abrahams seed I answer Right to Circumcision â—nd Baptism is not from the Covenant but according to Gods appointment to some whether they be in covenant or not Abrahams seed or not Gal. 4.26 28 31. Gal. 3.29 I have formerly shewed that by Vs all are not meant every Galatian Christian Professor but true believers as Rom. 8 32. 1 Cor. 12 13. 2 Cor. 3.18 therefore thence it cannot be gathered that any meer professor of faith is Abrahams seed much less his infants None but true believers are said Gal. 3.27 to be baptized into Christ and to put on Christ though others were baptized into his Name which appears verse 26. where they are said to be the Sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus and yet there were other than elect persons in that Church and they baptized Mr. C. methinks should not be ignorant that what is said of persons in the Churches indefinitely is sometimes verified onely of the choyce party 1 Cor. 1.1 1 Thess. 1.4 1 Pet. 1.5 2.9 by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part Nor doth Mr C. his distinction of baptizing into Christ putting on Christ being Children of the promise being by one spirit baptized into one body attributing these to all Sacramentally and in facie Ecclesiae suit well to these places in which the predicate cannot be attributed in truth to those that are meerly such As for the last Objection Mr. C. must needs be guilty of making three parties in the Covenant Abraham his seed Believers and their Infants For Believers are not comprehended under Abraham but under his seed nor believers naturall infants comprehended under Abrahams seed except they be true believers or elect persons nor in the covenant made to Abraham and his Seed doth Abraham sustain the person of all believers Jewes and Gentiâ—es but of the Father of them and therefore as yet Mr. C. his Conclusion remains unproved that the Covenant interest at least Externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched Believers is Gospel but a Figment of Mr. C. not found in Scripture SECT XLVI The 27 28 29 Chapters of Mr. Blakes Vindic. Faeder is are examined and it is shewed That he hath not proved the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times to admit or to be made to any but the Elect regenerate SIth Mr. Bl. is accounted one of the chief Patrons of Infant Baptism my purpose is to examine the remainder of that which he hath written in his Vindic. Foed against me for Infant Baptism and may be conceivâ—d to be yet unanswered Ch. 27 pag. 189 190. he heaps up many texts to prove that in old Testament times the Covenant was made with Israel in the vttermost latitude and extent with all that bore the name of Israel which I grant understanding it of the National Covenant Deut. 29. and of the Covenant of the Law Exod 20. c. but deny it being meant of the Covenant oâ—
of the Covenant of grace in Gospel times And Jer. 34.18 19 20 is ridiculously alledged sith it speaks not of the Covenant Evangelical but of the particular Covenant which Zedekiah and the Princes of Judah made to let their Hebrew servants go free which they brake contrary to the Law Yet to shew Mr. Bls. futility in arguing there is no consequence in this reasoning In mens Covenants there are that enter Covenant and keep it and others that in like manner do enter into Covenant and not keep it and so men enter into Covenant with God and some keep it and some not therefore they that hold that God makes his Covenant of Evangelical grace onely with the elect regenerate do confound the Covenant it self and the conditions of it or the duties required in it or the entrance into Covenant and our observation of it or walking up in faithfulness to it For the distinction remains still between all these though they be eonjoyned in the same persons as heat and light are distinct though together in flame and justification and sanctification though conjoyned in the same persons Yea sith Mr. Bl. holds some that enter into Covenant are stedfast in it he makes according to his own superficial arguing the same confusion we do and so falls into the same imagined absurdity The 2d absurdity Mr. Bl. would fasten on the tenet that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times is limited to the elect is that then there is no such thing as an hypocrite in the world as in reference towards God For an hypocrite is one that personates the man that he is not an hypocrite respective to religion and in Scripture use of the phrase is one that pretends for God and is not Gods now according to this opinion that onely regenerate men are in Covenant there is no such thing as an hypocrite no such sin as hypocrisi where the Gospel is preached God makes tender of himself in Covenant and in case none but regenerate persons enter Covenant then onely they take upon them the persons of people in relation to him Answ. If Mr. Bl. and other Paedobaptists had any will to deal â—onestly as men that sought to clear truth and not to pervert readâ—rs they would being so often particularly in my Postscript § 6. admonished distinguish of being in Covenant by their own aâ—t of covenanting and Gâ—ds act of promising I never denâ—ed that in respect of their own act of â—ovenanting mere visible professors may bâ— said to be in Covenant with God but denied that in respâ—ct of Gods act of promising which alone was in question sith the question being of infants they cannot be said to be in Covenant with God by their owâ— act of covenanting but only by Gods act of promising any other â—hen elect persons are in Covenant with God Now I grant it that of them to whom the Gospel-covenant is made by God there is none an hypocrite but there be hypocrites of those that enter into Covenant with God that is of those that promise to be Gods and are noâ— to whom though God tenders himself in Covenant yet he makes no Covenant or promise to them of Evangelical grace and therfore notwithstanding this imagined absurdity yet the position is true that the Covenant of grace in Gospel times as made by God to men is limited to the elect The 3d. absurdity is then no Minister in any Church may baptize any person for none can now discern infâ—llibly whether a person be regenerate and Mr. Bl. findes Christ giving charge to disciple Nations and to baptise them but findes him not giving Commission that when in the judgement of charity men have cause to conceive them to be disciples then to baptize them The Apostles staid not for observation of those signes that might in a well-grounded chariâ—y perswade that they were regenerate persons And these that fix it here â—oo ordinarily make interests the chief ground to carry their charity to a more favourable construction They that are most like to make a party with them or drive on interest their way must be â—udged persons meet for baptism of this in a shorâ— time we have large experience Those that gather up Churches and initiate them by baptism the way of the Apostles I confess in case that they would make good that they have to deal with Heathens and therefore a way of more colour then theirs that set up new Churches and retain the old baptism we see what manner of saints are received among them such that civil persons respective to sobriety chastity or upright dealing with men cannot without stain of their reputation make their companions Answ. Paedobaptists do usually plead that infants are in the Covenant of grace therefore they are to be baptized The antecedent can be meant of being in the Covenant of grace no otherwise then by Gods act of promise to be the God of a believers seed therefore they make the being in Covenant by Gods act of promise to be a persons God the rule of baptizing Now I assert that God hath not promised to be a God to any man or his seed in respect of Evangelical grace but the elect Therefore this absurdity is justly charged on the Paedobaptists that according to their hypotheses no Minister can baptize any infant in faitâ— Foâ— he must â—aptize according to them onely those infants that are in Covenant and whom he knowes to be in Covenant but those infants onely are in Covenant who are elect and no Minister can know which infant is elect or in Covenant with God which not all infants are not no not of believers not all Abrahams or Isaacs Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. Therefore according to this rule no Paedobaptist can baptize any infant in faith and a judgement of charity Mr. M. Mr. Bl. and others agree and that according to truth is not it we are to baptize by So that this absurdity doth unavoidably follow on Paedobaptists opinion which Mr. Bl. endeavours but in vain to fasten on us who do often disclaim baptizing persons upon their being in Covenant with God by his act of promise to be their God as our rule and do continually assert our baptizing persons because disciples by profession and by reason of their own covenanting to follow Christ which Mr. Bl. confesseth to be according to Christs Commission and the Apostles way in dealing with Heathens and therefore the absurdity follows not our opinion but the Paedobaptists who can baptize no infant by their rule because they cannot know any infant whom they are to baptize to be in the Covenant of grace As for Mr. Bls. confession that our practise is the way of the Apostles in case we would make good that we have to deal with Heathens I wonder Mr. Bl. a learned man should require us to make good that which of it self is so manifest For sure we have to deal with Heathens or with Jews siâ—h all the men in
Evangelical grace then â—od promised to be his God in respect of regeneration justification adoption sanctification and raising up to eternal liâ—e and he was in that estaâ—e and if hâ— were shut out again â—hen a man may be in the covenant of Evangelical grace and shut out again which is contrary to the very end of the new Câ—venant as it is expressed Heb. 8.6 7 8 9 10. and infers falling away from Gospel grace Mr. Bl. proceeds thus Neither are all these included for as God cast off Ishmael and his seed so also Esau and his posterity therefore the Apostle having brought the former distinction of seeds rests not there but adds v. 10 11 12 13. And therâ—fore the denomination of the seed is in Jacob sirnamed Israel Therefore when the head or if you will root of the Covenant is mentioned usually in Scripture it is not barely Abraham but Abraham and Isaac to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line not barely Abraham and Isaac but Abraham Isaac and Jacob. The natural seed of Jacob then not according to ours but Gods own limits is included in that Covenant in the full latitude and extent of it Answ. 1. The terms head or root of the Covenant are not Scripture expressions I finde Gal. 3.16 that to Abraham and his seed were the promises made and Rom. 11.16 If the root be holy so are the branches v. 18. thou bearest not the root â—ut the root thee but this root is I conceive no other then Abraham who is â—ot termed either head or root of the Covenant singly or jointly but of the olive or branches in respect of their propagation from him partly as a natural father and a spiritual father in respect of Isâ—aelite believers anâ— partly as a spiritual father onely in respect of Gentile believers But if any be to be termed the head and root of the Covenant I think it is most fit to give that title to Christ the surety and mediatour Heb. 7.22 8.6 to whom the promises were made Gal. 3.16 17. 2. When God is stiled the God of Abraham Iâ—saac and Jacob that it is to exclude all Abrahams seed of any other line and to say that God cast off Esau and his posterity from the Covenant is more then the Apostle saith or is according to truth For the Apostle doth onely say that therefore the Oracle was delivered concerning Esau and Jacob and the words of the Prophet concerning Jacob and Esau are alledged that he might shew that God confined not his Covenant to Abrahams natural posterity nor included them all not to shew that he cast off or excluded all Abrahams seed of any other line then â—saac and Jacob from the Covenant For then Joâ— Jethro and all other Proselytes of Abrahams seed by Keturah of Esauâ—s posterity had been excluded from the Covenant of grace in Christ which is contrary to Scripture and in like sort all the Gentile from Ishmael Keturah Esau â—ad been excluded from being called Christian believers For none are called by God who are excluded out of the Covenant of grace 3. That the natural seed of Jacob is included in that Covenant Gen. 17.7 in the full latitude and exâ—ent of it as it comprehends a promise of Evangelical grace is so far from being the Apostles determination thaâ— he resolves in the contrary in those words Rom. 9.6 All are not Israel that are of Israel Secondly saith Mr. Bl. We dâ— not say that this Covenant was entred with Abraham as a nâ—tural Father nor his seed comprehended as natural children but aâ— a pâ—ofessour of the Faith â—ccepting the Conant taking God for his God he accepts it for himself and fâ—r his seed his natural pâ—sterity And all that profess the Faith hold in the like tenâ—re are in Covenant and have the Covenant not vested in their own persons but enlarged to their posterity Answ. I do not remember that I did any where say that Paedobaptists said that covenant Gen. 17.7 wâ— entred with Abraham as a natural â—ather but the Authour of the little Treatise intituled Infants Baptism proved lawful by Scripture asserted the Covenant was made with Abraham as a believer to which I replied that as it was Evangelical it was not made with Abraham simply as a believer for then it had been made to every believer as to Abraham but with Abraham as the Father of believers and with his seed as believers as he was But that ever any Paedoâ—aptist did afore Mr. Bl assert that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it was a Covenant of Evangelical grace was entred by God with him as a professour of the faith accepting the Covenant taking God for his God accepting it for himself and for his seed his natural posterity I do not remeâ—ber If they should yet I take it to be false and without likelihood of truth For if the Covenant of Evangelical grace were made with Abraham under that formal consideration then God had promised Evangelical grace justication adoption to him as a professour of faith onely so that if it were supposed he had been an hopocrite yet he should have been justified adopted in that he was a professour of faith or else it is to be conceived justification and adoption were not to Abraham by this Covenant contrary to Gal. 3.16 17 18. nor hath it any likelihood of truth that God would single out so exemplary a believer as Abraham was Rom. 4.18 19. and enter so solemn a Covenant with him barely as a professour of faith which was competent to an hypocrite Nor do I well know in what sense God entred the Covenant with him as â— professour of the faith accepting the Covenant for himself and his sâ—ed For Gods entring the Covenant is no other then his making of it But God did not make it on this condition that Abraham should accept it fâ—r him and his seed but as knowing Abrahams integrity bâ— way of testification of his love and grace to him being so eminent and tried a believer afore this Câ—venant was made with him Nor is it true that all that profess the faith hold in the like tenure are in Covenant and have the Covenâ—nt not vested in their own persons but enlarged to their posterity there being none in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 but Abraham and his seed of whom no meer professour of faith much leâ—s his seed except elect or true believer is either Nor was the Covenant ever made to Abrahams or Israels mere natural posterity as it is Evangelical much less enlarged to the posterity natural of every professour of faith Thirdly saith Mr. Bl. We entitle the seed oâ— Abraham as before to spiritual mercies and so the seed of all that hold in the tenure of Abraham to saving grace and justification to life eternal not by an absolute conveyance infallibly to inherit we know though Israel be as the sand of the sea yet a remnant onely shall be saved Rom. 9.27 but upon Gods terms and conditions in
of Abraham onely or Moses onely or both or whether Aaron and all other be excluded or not And what he means by a Church call to infants that cannot understand I know not except by a call he meaneth circumcising them And 6. whether he mean that call by which particularly they were at first made a Church or that also by which in every generation their posterity were so made or entred members 7. And if so whether that which was proper to the Jews posterity or that which was proper to converted proselyted members or some call common to both and what thâ—t was When I can possibly understand which of all these calls he means that is altered then it may be worth labour to answer him Answ. The speeches are inept of the essential parts of the Covenant and the accidental the essential parts of that Covenant or Law giving them the essence of a Church I will be to thee a God and thou shalt be to me a people Deut. 29.11 12. Which suppose either God could not make a Covenant without that promise or that a Church could not be without that promise or that Covenant might be without the promise of the land of Canaan which was as essential to that Covenant as the other they being both but integral parts of which each is essential to the integrity of the whole And for the essence of a Church which consists in the association or union of the members it is not given by a Covenâ—nt of God promising what he will be to them and they to him for the future for that assures them onely of continuance doth not give their present essence but by such transeunt fact as whereby he separates them from others and unites or incorporates them together which I call as usually Divines do the Church call agreeably to the Scripture Rom 9.24 25 26. 1 Cor. 1.2 24. c. Which Church call is either inward by his Spirit and is still the same or outward and was thoâ—gh by various acts of his providence yet most manifestly by the authority of Abraham and Moses not by meer perswasion and begetting of faith as in the Christian Church when the preachers of the Gospel called the Christian Church But the authority and power of Rulers who did as well by coercive power as by perswasive words draw all in the compass of their jurisdiction into a policy or Commonwealth which was called the congregation or Church of Israel in which the infants were included and by vertue of the settlement by Abraham and Moses it so continued to the time of the dissolution This Mr. B. might have understood easily to be my meaning by my instances which he sets down that the way means or manner of outward Church call into the Christian visible Church is altered from what it was in the Jewish For the Christian Church outward call was onely according to institution and primitive practise by the preaching the Gospel to each member of the visible Church Christian and by that means perswading persons to receive Christ and not by any coercive power of Rulers whereas the Jewish was otherwise Mr. B. proceeds In the mean time briefly thus I answer 1. The additional lesser parts of the Covenant giving them the ceremonial accidents of their Church is ceased and so are the ceremonies built thereon 2. The Essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people If they heartily consent it may be done onely the World is taken into this Covenant with them and neither Jew nor Gentile excluded that exclude not themselves 3. Gods immediate call of Abraham and Moses did quickly cease when yet the Church ceased not 4. And for the Ministerial call 1. That which was by the person of Abraham and Moses numerically did cease when their act was performed yet the effect ceased not Nor did the Jews cease being a Church when Abraham and Moses were dead and gone 2. If he mean it of that species or sort of Ministerial call then what sort is that And indeed for ought I can possibly learn by his speeches this is that he drives at God then called by Magistrates but now by Ministers And secondly then he called all the Nation in one day but now he calls heâ—e one and there one Answ. The Reader may hence easily perceive that Mr. B. might have understood or rather did understand me well enough that I meant it of the sort of Ministerial call which he could learn by my speeches that drive at it But whether he heeded not my words at first when he wrote the questions or whether he thought it best to make shew of not understanding what he could not well answer he hath chosen to pretend ambiguity where all was plain But for what he saiâ—h that the essential part of the Law or Covenant is not ceased because God yet offers the Jews to be their God and them to be his people he therein shews two mistakes 1. That he makes that promise to be the essential part of the Covenant as if God could not make a Covenant without it which is false the Covenant Gen. 9.9 10. with Phinehas Numb 25.12 13. with the Rechabites Jer. â—5 19 being without it 2. That the Covenant did not cease because God still offers which implies either the Covenant to be all onâ— with an offer or that there is a Covenant when there is an offer whereas there may be an offer yet no Covenant and there may be a Covenant and yet no offer upon condition of consent as Mr. B. means But Mr. B. proceeds thus Let us therefore see what strength lies in these words 1. What if all this were true is there the least colour for the consequence from hence It is as good a consequence to say That when God judged Israel by Debora a woman which before was judged by men that then Israel ceased to be a Commonwealth or the constitution of the Commonwealth was altered Oâ— when the Government was changed from Judges to Kings that then the essential constitution of the Commonwealth was changed and so all infants lost their standing in the Commonwealth What if the King inviting the guests to the marriage feast did first send one kind of Officer and then another first a man and then a child and then a woman doth it follow that the feast is therefore altered If first a man and then a child and then a woman be sent to call you to dinner or to any imployment or company doth this change the nature of the company or imployment What if a Bishop call one man to the Ministery and a Presbytery another and the people a third is not the Ministerial work and office still the same What if a Magistrate convert one man now and a Minister another and a woman a third doth it follow that the Church or State that they are converted to is therefore not the
An unmoved position That same thing in profession constitutes the Church visible which in its inward nature constitutes the mystical Church that is faith Hudson vindic ch 4 p. 90. Every visible believer is called a Christian and a member of Christs visible Kingdom because â—he form viz. visible believing common to all Christians and all members is found in him And this may be proved out of Scripture which denominates visible Christian church-members from their own profession of faâ—th in respect of which they are termed believers 1 Tim. 2.12 Acts 4.32 5.14 c. nor is there any such denomination in Scripture or hint of such a form constituting a visible Christian church-member or believer as the faith of another of the parent church c. It is a meer novel device of Papists who count men believers from an implicit assent to what the Church holds and Paedobaptists who ascribe unto infants faith and repentance implicit in their sureties the Church their owners the nation believing their parents next or remote faith Which is a gross and absurd conceit For that in profession alone makes visible believers which makes in reality true believers But that 's a mans own faith Hab. 2.4 not anothers therefore a mans own and not anothers profession of faith makes a visible believer Again the form denominating must be inherent or in or belong to the person denominated so as that there is some union of iâ— to him but there is no inherence or union of anothers faith to an infant Ergo. Naturally there is none nor legally if there be â—et him that can shew by what grant of God it is Infants may have civil right to their parents goods a natural interest in their mothers milk parents and masters may have power over the bodies labour c. of their children and servants they have no power to convey Faith or Ecclesiastical right without their own consent But this conceit is so ridiculous that I need spend no more words to refute iâ— I subsume Infants make no profession of faith they are onely passive and do nothing by which they may bee denominated visible Christiâ—ns as experience shews yea at the Font while the faith is confessed by the parent or surety and the water sprinkled on their faces they cry and as they are able oppose it Ergo. To this faith Mr. M. I answer even as much as the infants of the Jews could do of old who yet in their dayes were visible members Answ. The infants of the Jews were never Christian visible church-members though they were visible members of the Jewish Church But Mr. M. neither hath proved nor can that the same thing to wit natural birth and Jewish descent and dwelling which denominated the Jewish infants visible members of that church doth denominate a christian visible church-member And till he do this the force of the argument remains 5. I argue If infants bee visible Christian church-members then there may be a visible Church christian which consists onely of infants of believers for a number of visible members makes a visible Church entitive though not organical But this is absurd Ergo Infants of believers have not the form of a visible Church-member To this Mr. M saith I answer no more now then in the time of the Jewish Church it 's possible but very improbable that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behinde them Answ. 1. It is no absurdity to say that of the Jewish church which it is absurd to say of the Christian For the Jewish church was the people of God of Abrahams or Israels house which they might be though but infants But the Christian visible Church is a people or company that profess faith in Christ which infants cannot do and therefore it is absurd to imagine that a Christian church visible may bee onely of infants of believers whereof not one is a believer by profesâ—ion not so of ths Jewish church 2. The possibility acknowledged by Mr. M. is enough for my purpose though it never were or should bee so in the event sith the absurdity followes upon that grant as well as the actual event 6. I argue If infants be visible Christian church-members then there is some cause thereof But there is none Ergo. The major is of it self evident every thing that is hath some cause by which it is The minor is proved thus If infants be visible-Christian church members by some cause then that is the cause of all infants Christian visible church-membership or of some onely But of neither Ergo. I presume it will be said of some sith they account it a priviledge of believers infants But to the conttary there is no such cause by which infants of believers are Christian visible church-members Mr. B. plain Script c. part 1. c. 29. pag. 92 Denies that the parents faith is any cause not so much as instrumental properly of the childes holiness by which he means visible Church-membership but he makes it a condition which is an antecedent or causa sine qua non of childrens holiness I answer saith he fully If this be the question what is the condition on which God in Scripture bestoweth this infant holiness It is the actual believing of the parent For what it is that hath the promise of personal blessings it is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants Therefore the promise to us being on condition of believing or of actual faith it were vain to say that the promise to our infants is oneâ—y to faith in the habit The habit is for the act yet is the habit of necessity for producing of the act therefore it is both faith in the habit or potentia proxima and in the act that is necessary But yet there is no necessity that the act must be presently at the time performed either in actu procreandi vel tempore nativitatis vel baptismatis It is sufficient that the parent be virtually and dispositively at present a believer and one that stands in that relation to Christ as believers do To which end it is requisite that he have actually believed formerly or else he hath no habit of faith and hath not fallen away from Christ but be still in the disposition of his heart a believer and then the said act will follow in season and the relation is permanent which ariseth from the act and ceaseth not when the act of faith intermitteth It is not therefore the meer bare profession of faith which God hath made the condition of this gift but the former act and present disposition Ch. 2. pag. 15. The parents faith is the condition for himself and his infants The causes of this condition of Discipleship or Churchmembership may improperly be called the causes of our Discipleship it self but properly Christ by his Law or Covenant grant is the onely cause efficient Pag. 69. All these Church mercies are bestowed on the standing Gospel grounds
The dedication of the firstâ—born was evidently a type of Christ and the Church under him and yet he can give no more Scripture or reason for it then I can for this that the Churchmembership of infants was but to endure till Christs comming in the flesh To omit what I have already argued in the 50 51 52. sections before in my apprehension the Apostle doth plainly teach Gal. 3.16 to the end that the Churchmembership that was by the descent by natural birth from Abraham continued onely till faith came that is till Christ was exhibited and believed on as already come in the flesh that now all are children of God Abrahams seed by faith that there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile the Jews natural birth brings not him in the Church nor the Gentiles uncircumcision excludes him that so many as are admitted into the Church by Baptism do put on Christ and consequently the Churchmembership by birth into the Jewish Church national now ceaseth and there is no Churchmembership but by faith in Christ. And this I might further confirm from Gal. 5.6 Col. 2.11 12. 3.11 And to these Scriptures I add this reason The course that God took in severing the Jewish nation from other people circumcising the males keeping the distinction of tribes and the inheritances in the families and the genealogies so exactly till Christ came ordering the tax of Augustus at the time of Christs birth and after his ascension scattering the Jews out of their land overturning their Commonwealth confounding their pedigrees taking to himself another Church in another way by preaching the Gospel and baptizing believers and none else doth plainly evidence to me that infants Churchmembership was but an introduction type shadow fore-runner to Christs manifestation in the flesh and to cease as John Baptists office did when Christ was exhibited and fully manifested to the world And accordingly Mr. Bs. questions are answered the first that it was heard of before that upon the comming of Christ believers Church-membership was to succeed to birth-Churchmembership To the second that though Christ cast not any out of the Church that he may succeed them yet by his comming he alters Churchmembership by birth into Churchmembership by faith The third and fourth are answered by setting down my apprehension and the Scriptures and reason of it The fifth I answer affirmatively the sixth negatively The seventh that men and women are not Churchmembers now by birth any more then infants and in that respect the nature of Churchmembership is the same in both To the eighth the Apostle did speak of it in the places before cited To the ninth the silly comforter knows no reason why the Jews broken off should be comforted but thinks it was matter of comfort to the believing Jews that in stead of infants visible Churchmembership and their own standing in the national Church Jewish they had Christ manifested in the flesh as a greater mercy the body in stead of the shadow the Sun risen in stead of the Day-star Mr. B. goes on thus But let us consider a little what is the Church Is it not the body of Christ Even all the Church since Adams fall and the making of a new Covenant is one body of Christ Even the visible Church is his visible body as 1 Cor. 12. and many Scriptures fully shew therefore even the branches not bearing fruit are said to be in him that is in his visible body Joh. 14.1 2 3. Now doth Christ break off all infants from his body that he may come in the flesh to be a greater mercy to them What 's that but to be a greater mercy then himself who is the life and welfare of the body Answ. The invisible Church is all one body of Christ the visible hath had such differences that one part to wit those who feared God and prayed continually Acts 10 2. yet had no communion with the other but were counted unclean and shunned because uncircumcised Acts 11 2 3. The Church of the circumcised which was by natural birth is now broken off upon Christs comming and another Church by faith of all nations is raised Acts 10.34 35. in which infants are not till they believe who though they are of the invisible Church or body of Christ by election and invisible operation of the spirit yet are not of the visible till they profess faith in Christ as already come in the flesh who was the great mercy promised to Abraham Joh. 8.56 in which he rejoyced although a great part of his natural seed were broken off and this was a greater mercy then was before exhibited although then Christ was the life and welfare of the body Again saith Mr. B it seems by this Mr. T. thinks that excommunication is a great mercy If all the Jews infants had been excommunicate or cast out of the Church by God himself it were no more then Christ did in mercy never bringing them into any other Church in stead Answ. Nothing said by me gives any occasion to this imputation Excommunication if just I count a curse but the non taking of infants into the visible Church Christian hath nothing of a curse in it it being onely an act of God according to his Soveraignty who had liberty to appoint who should be of his Church who not Against this strange fiction saith Mr. B. I argued thus If ordinarily God shew not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it then it is not a greater mercy or for the parties greater good to be put out then to be in But ordinarily God sheweth not so great mercy to those out of the Church as to those in it Therefore it is not for their greater good nor in greater mercy to be put out To this Mr. T. answered nothing Answ. What need I when I grant the conclusion Mr. B. makes a strange fiction of his own as if I thought excommunication to be cast out or put out of the Church a great mercy and held infants were excommunicated cast or put out of the Church Which is far from me or any thing I say who do not assert them put out by any judicial sentence but by a free act of Gods soveraignty left out for reasons best known to himself but in part revealed to us Mr. B. adds I argued also thus â—f those that are out of the Church since Christ have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him as those in the Church had before Christ then it is not to them a great mercy to be out of the Church But those out of the Church since Christ have no such promise or assurance of mercy from him as those in the Church had before Christ therefore it cannot be to them a greater mercy To this Mr. T. answered that it is a greater mercy to infants since Christ to be out of the Church then before to be in it and that they have as much assurance of
v. 20. For the loss of standing in the visible Church needs not bee so much feared and a less care would serve turn to prevent it 3. That standing which would not prevent Gods not sparing is not the standing meant Rom. 11.20 For that would prevent Gods not sparing v. 21. But the standing onely in the visible Church by profession of faith would not prevent Gods not sparing Matt. 7.23 Ergo. 4. That faith and standing are meant here which in oâ—her places in that and other Epistles are meant by the Apostle when hee speakes of the same thing But in those places standing so as to persevere to salvation and justifying faith are meant as Rom. 5.2 and 14.4 2 Cor. 1.24 Ergo. 5. That standing and that faith is not meant of which it may bee said the root beareth them not verse 18. But of them who onely stand in the visible Church by a profession of faith it may bee said the root beareth them not For the rooâ— is Abraham and hee is a root or father to none but those who have justifying faith Rom. 4.11 12. Ergo. 6. By that faith the branches stand which is directly opposite to the unbelief by which others were broken off vers 20. But that was unbelief of heart and not of mouth onely ergo the faith is in the heart and not in the mouth onely by which the branches stand 7. That â—aith the branches stand by v. 20. by which they are partakers of the root and fatness of the Olive But that is justifying faith as shall be shewed in the vindication of the next argument Ergo. Mr. S. takes upon him to prove it meant of the visible Church by profession of faith by some of Master â—s arguments which because they are answered already in the first Part of this Review Sect. 6 c. I let pass onely whereas hee saith Can any man conceive that they should boast because the branches the Jewes were broken from election and true faith that they might be graffed in by a new act of Godâ— election and by true and saving faith I answer though they might not thus boast yet they might boast that God having broken off the Jews had in their stead ingraffed them by giving saving faith according to his eternal election And to what hee saith from v. 20 21 22 23. What are they exhortâ—d to look least they bee cut off from Gods election c Will M. T. turn a downright Arminian that hee may have any plea against the baptising of poor infants I answer 1. that I scarse think that scribler did well know what Arminianism was and that I have sufficiently acquitâ—ed my self from that which is indeed Arminianism and better then his magnified Aurthor Mr. B. 2. That â—e might with as good reason impeach the Apostle of downright Arminianism in that he exhorts us to give all diligence that we make our calling and election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 Mr. Bl. when he cannot untie this knot endeavours to cut it asunder by this assertion after many words which need no answer That there is no such thing in all Scripture as ingraffing into the Church invisible by faith all ingraffing is into the body visible and therefore by a faith of profession And yet his three first arguments whereby hee would prove this proposiâ—ion do conclude no ingraffing but into Christ and consequently neither into the invisible nor visible which is directly to contradict his own saying All ingraffing is into the body visible But let 's view his proofs about this position conâ—erning which it pleaseth Mr. Bl. to enter into the lists with me 1. Saith hee All ingraffing is into that subject which immediately receives what is ingraffed as the stock receives the syens but it is CHRIST and not the Church invisible that receives the elect believer Christ dwels in us by faith so wee in Christ Ephes. 3.17 Answ. â—his argument is made by Mr. Bl as if hee on purpose meant to refute himself For 1. he wouâ—d prove there is no ingraffing of elect believers into the invisible Church but into Christ because hee onely receives the elect believers which if true it would follow First that elect believers are not ingraffed into the visible Church but onely non-elect professours of faith who are hypocrites and so the visible Church should have no elect ones in it but all reprobates Secondly iâ— the reason were good there should bee no ingraffing of profâ—ssors of faith into the visible Church contrary to his assertion that all ingraffing is into the body visible For it is Christ that immediately receives that is owns or acknowledgeth bare professours of faith as visible Churchmembers as well as he receives that is owns and acknowledgeth as his invisible members them who are ingraffed into his invisible body 3. If wee be ingraffed by that faith by which Christ dwels in us and we in Christ Ephes. 3.17 then we are ingraffed into the olive by that â—aith which is justifying for by no other â—aith doth Christ dwell in us nor wee in him nor is any other meant Ephes. 3.17 as is apparent from the text the prayer of the Apostle being not for a bare dogmatical faith which they had already but justifying persevering whereby Christ might dwell in their hearts by his spirit c. and the ingraffing is into Christ and consequently into the invisible Church But so it is by Mr. Bls. argument ergo 2. I answer ingraffing is a metaphor and it notes uniting or joyning and this joyning is not natural but spiritual or moral and may bee at a remote bodily distance and without the knowledge of those to whom the person is ingraffed and may be to Christ and to his invisible body or visible without any act of the Church visible or invisible which may bee termed receiving yea if Mr. Bs. position bee right Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 27. that a man living alone in America may yet bee a member of the visible Church For hee hath that which constituteth him a visible member though there bee none to discern it a man may bee ingraffed into the Church visible though neither hee know any other Churchmember nor any other know him and therefore I deny Mr. Bls. major proposition in his argumenâ— if understood as it must be if it be to the purpose of that metaphorical ingraffing which is Rom. 11.17 c. 2 Saith he All ingraffinâ— is into that which gives sap and juyce to the ingraffed as the stock from the root to the syens now Christ gives sap to the elect believing not the Church and therefore it is not into the Church but into Christ. Answ. 1. This argument also gainsays Mr. Bls. proposition that all ingraffing is into the body visible for it is not the body visible that gives sap to the elect believing or professors of faith but Christ and therefore by this argument there is no ingraffing into the body visible 2. Christ onely gives sap and
juice effectively Abraham exemplarily the Church doth it onely as a vessel receiving it as the stock receives it first then the branch the veins receive the bloud then the other parts of the body And if Mr. Bls. major be understoood of any other giving juice it is denied if of this the minor 3. Saith he If saving faith ingraff the branch into the Church invisible then the Church invisible is the proper object of such faith but the Church is no such object of faith but Christ. Answ. 1. The same argument holds thus If profession of faith ingraff into the Church visible then the Church visible is the proper object of such profession But the Church visible is no such object but Christ therefore there is no ingraffing by profession of faith into the Church visible contrary to Mr. Bls. tenet 2. To say the Church invisible is the object of faith is no more then to say to believe the Holy Catholick Church is an Article of the Creed and this I think Mr. Bl. counts no absurdity 3. The consequence of the major proposition is denied Faiâ—h that saves hath the object Christ and as it respects Christ doth unite or ingraff us to him as to our head and to the invisible Church as his body 4. Saith he That supposed ingraffing into the invisible Church is either known to the body invisible or unwitting if known then it is not invisible They have no light to discern an invisible work if unknown then there could not be such a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles nor complaint of breaking off of the Jewes all being done by an invisible translation and so the subject of the question is taken away Answ. It was known to some of the invisible to others not though it were known yet it might be invisible they had light to discern an invisible work Though the work were unknown to some yet there might be a dispute about the new ingraffing of Gentiles and complaint of breaking off the Jews as there was Acts 11. though all were done by an invisible translation So that there is no truth or strength in this rope of sand Mr. Bl. makes and the subject of the question still remains There is as much futility in the rest of his dictates Scheibler saith in his Topicks A not-being cannot be a part dividing yet he saiâ—h in case any defend that to be which yet is not in controversies such a division is to be supposed But how vainly Mr. Bl. hath disputed against an ingraffing into the invisible Church may be discerned and thereby how frivolously 〈◊〉 compares it to a mountain of ayr And what he saith that the access of the Gentiles in the Acts was an ingraffing into the Church visible may be granted and it may be true that it was into the invisible Church also One new man Ephes. 2.15 is true onely of the invisible Church for the Gentiles were never one visible Church with the Jews except some few proselytes of them That the visible Church communicates sap and juyce which is the fatness of the Olive in ordinances and that saith dogmatical looks upon the Church meaning the visible as the partial object are diâ—tates which I need not refute sith there is no proof brought for them As I conceiâ—e he means them they are false so much for the vindication of my third argument My fourth argument is from v. 17. thus That ingraffing is meant v. 17. whereby the wild Olive is co-partaker of the root and â—atness of the Olive tree But such is onely by giving faith according to election Ergo. I proved the minor by shewing that Abraham is there the root as the Father of the faithfull and the fatness of the Olive not priviledges of outward ordinances but righteousness Mr. Sydenham answers it by referring to Mr. Bl. and censuring my answer to him as a poor evasion which I shall free from this censure in my reply to Mr. Bl. Yet Mr. S. scribles somewhat besides which I shall reply to He begins with questions 1. â—ere not the natural branches which were broken off partakers of the fatness of the root Answ. No. And were they all elected and partakers of saving graces or outward priviledges onely Answ. None of the branches broken off were elected or partakers of saving graces though some were of outward priviledges And why then should it be thought absurd for the Gentiles by ingraffing to pâ—rtake of the fatness of the root onely in outward priviledges seeing it was so with the natural branches and they all grow on the same root Answ. The natural branches as natural did not grow on the same root with the ingraffed Abraham was not a natural Father to the ingraffed branches they descended not from him by natural generation nor did the natural branches which were broken off grow on the same spiritual root with the ingraffed Abraham was indeed the Father of the faithfull Gentiles and they his seed spiritually but so he was not â—o the Jews broken off nor they ever in their own persons in the Olive tree as it notes the Church of true believers or in Abraham the root as is meant Rom. 11.17 nor were ever partakers of the fatness of it but the Gentiles were nor did the Jews fall from election and saving graces which they had in their own persons but which they had in course been partakers of if they had believed which I have cleared more fully in my answer to Mr. Cobbet in the first part of this Review sect 10. He tels me further It 's improper to call a root an exemplary cause there is no harmony between them and example conveyed nothing here is a conveyance of fatness Answ. It is improper to term an exemplary cause a root for it is a metaphor but it is no more improper then to term an exemplary cause a Father as the Apostle doth Abraham the Father of believers Rom. 4.11 12. when yet the Text makes him only such by his exemplary believing and if there were harmony between a Father and â—n exemplary cause though Abraham conveyed not faith or righteousness but as an example there is harmony between a root and an exemplary cause though it convey nothing but as an example Nor is it unsuitable to good language to say the ingraffed branches are partakers of the fatness or fulness of Abraham as an example That fatness the Jews had from Abraham which is meant Rom. 11.17 they had not from him as a natural father nor did God make the Evangelical Covenant with him and his natural seed nor do the ingraffed branches ever become natuâ—al branches though they partake of Evangelical benefits as well as the believing Jews who were natural branches What Mr. S. adds in answer to my objection that if it were meant of outward priviledges it were false for the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges of Abraham that Abraham is a root in the New Testament as well as in the Old
a sufficient reason for infant baptism as will be shewed in the sequel The first thing I except against this Exposition that when it is said Gen. 12.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he takes it for granted it is to bee understood actively as if the meaning were that Abraham should be a blessing to others whereas as Pareus in his Com saith it may be an amplification of the things going before thou shalt bee altogether and very blessed in which sense we use often the abstract for the contract as a man very honest is called honesty Yea the LXX render it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thou shalt be blessed Piscat schol Vel esto in benedictionâ— hoc est benedictus Diodati annot Blessed every way as if all blessings were gathered together in thee or a pattern of a compleat blessing 2. That he takes iâ— as iâ— what is said must bee applicable to all believers that they shall be blessings in their generations But this is not proved from the text which onely speaks of Abraham being a blessing and though it is true Heb. 6.14 the promise of blessâ—ng to Abraham is made a promise of which all believers are heyrs v. 17. yet is it plain from many passages in that Chapter v 9 11 12 15 18 19. that it is meant that they are heirs of the promise of blessing to themselves in enjoying salvation as Abraham did not of imparting blessing to others 3. That he takes it as if it must follow that if Abraham were a blessing to others it must bee in that spiritual blessings according to election were in some proportion entailed to the postâ—rity and neighbourhood of all true believers But Pareus thus Some expound it actively thou shalt be a blessing that is thou shalt bless others my blessing shall not bee shut up in thee alone but out of thee it shall flow also to others Blessing shall so stick in thee wheresoever thou comest that by thy ministry others may also come to a blessing Nor do the exposition of some Hebrews seem to bee refused that Abraham shall be a publike example of all sort of blessing in the world so that all that wish well to themselves or oâ—hers may wish for the happiness of Abraham Or as the new annot in Gen. 12.2 shalt be a blessing That is more then thou shalt have a blessing for in this blessing is virtually comprised the happiness of both worlds and of all that are truely blessed in all ages whereof though God be the onely Author Abraham is honoured to bee a principal means under him to bring it to pass in being the progenitour of the promised seed and setting such an example of beliefe as might qualifie him to be stiled father of the faithfull Rom. 4.11 12. The world shall receive by thy seed which is Christ the blessing which it lost in Adam Mr. C. himselfe denies not to bee included in this promise that of Abraham and his seed the Lord CHRIST should come but saith if it bee restrained onely to this then it will follow that all those of the Line of CHRIST were blessings to the World as well as hee To which I reply 1. if the sense given be included as he grants then his sense is not necessary nor can any thing be proved by it 2. Though the speech in the sense given bee restrained yet the absurdity followes not sith the being a blessing by begetting Christ is not so invested in any as in Abraham who is made the first Trustee as it were of this blessing by the Covenant or Charter granted to him 4. I except that in the promise In thee or in thy seed shall all the families or Nations of the earth bee blessed Mr. Carter conceives thee and thy seed to comprehend every believer Whereas the Apostle expounds Acts 3.25 in thy seed of Christ onely and in thee Galath 3.8 9. of Abraham onely with whom as the pattern oâ— believing and beeing blessed they which bee of the faith are blessed I deny not that by Abrahams seed believers are meant Gen. 17.7 and Gen. 15.5 and that the Apostle Rom. 4.18 Gal. 3.29 and elsewhere so expounds it But no where do I finde the promises Gen. 1â— 3 18.18 22.18 expounded so as that in thy seed should noâ—e every believer and the sense in which Mr. Carter takes it as if in every believer all the families of the earth should bee blessed it is derogatory from Abrahams peculiar priviledge one way understood another from Christs and not much short of blasphemy 5. That hee makes families and nations of the earth to bee different in the promises mentioned as appears by his words and that chiefly and in the first place to their families and not onely so but also to nations whereas the holy Ghost makes no such difference For as the same promise which is expressed by families Gen. 12.3 is expressed by nations Gen. 18.18 so in the new Testament the promise Gen. 12.3 where the word is rendred families is expressed Gal. 3.8 by nations and the term which is Gen. 22.18 all the nations of the earth is Acts 3.25 all the kindreds or families of the earth as Mr. C. would have it 6. Mr. C. seems by families to whom believers should be a blessing children as when hee saith God will ordinarily cast children elect upon elect parents and by nations neighbourhoods as when hee saith the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together whereas families in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether rendred by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the LXX Gen. 12.3 that is tribes or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 3.25 notes more then posterity or housholds even whole tribes and kinreds that draw their line from one great Ancestour and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 notes a whole people of one language though in their dwellings so remote as to have no entercourse one with another I will not trouble my self to enquire what difference there is between the words in Hebrew and Greek which are translated families tribes kindreds nations This I am sure they contain greater and more ample numbers of men then those who live together under one roof or one town and if from thence the extent of the Covenant be inferred to posterity of believers and their neighbours and so the seal of the Covenant as Mr. C. doth because believers are promised to bee a blessing to posterity and neighbours it will follow from the termes families and nations that they are blessings to whole parishes townes cities and nations and they are to be baptised and parochial city national Churches to bee set up again against which Mr. C. with his brethren have so much hitherto contended 7. By Mr. Cs. exposition whereas the promises are that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in a believer this is brought to so narrow a compass as that it is restrained to posterity and neighbourhood 8. The manner how in believers their posterity
is said to be blessed and he a blessing to them is expressed to be in that God casts elect children upon elect paients which I know not well how to understand It seems to bear a sense if not the same yet very near that in which we are said to be chosen in Christ Ephes. 1.3 4. which Mr. C. alledgeth to this purpose and 1 Cor. 1.30 We are of God in him who is made to us of God wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption which were near blasphemy Which to avoid it concerned Mr. C. to have more clearly and distinctly expressed himself What he saith that the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 12.2 3. respecteth families and posteritie else he had said all the believers or all the people of the earth not all the families of the earth shall bee blessed shews his oversight in not observing that it is Gal. 3.8 all the nations of the earth which is equivalent to all the people of the earth and yet v. 9. by all the nations of the earth are meant no more then they that are of faith And when he saith that the Apostle Acts 3.25 could not have said to the Jewes ye are the children of the Covenant had it not respected the children of the people of God hee heeded not that they are said as well to bee children of the Prophets and therefore the sense is not that they were descended from the Covenant or Prophets by natural generation but ye are they to whose Ancestours the Covenant was at first given and the Prophets sent which are not common things to all the children of the people of God or true believers the Gentile believers children are not children of the Covenant and Prophets in the sense there meant but proper to the Jews Nor is the proposition true which Mr. C. would gather from the Covenant to Abraham For 1. God hath plainly discovered his mind Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18 24 25. that he chuseth at his pleasure children of unbelievers as well as believers and of the posterity of believers either none or which he will arbitrarily and by no ordinary or certain rule but as a potter doth with his clay acâ—ording to his soveraignty not out of special grace to the children of his elect for the parents sake and accordingly the saints praise him for their redemption out of every kinred and tongue and people and nation Rev. 5.9 without respect to their Ancestours 2. Our Lord Christ foretold Matt 10.34 35. that he came to divide a man against his father and the daughter against her mother and the daughter in law against her mother in law and a mans enemies should be they of his own house And in the families of the most godly how few were found elect may appear by the posterity of David Josiah Jehoshaphat â—li Samuel Abraham himself with many more As for our own experience in our own times it is so uncertain that no good estimate can be made thereupon concerning Gods ordinary way Perhaps in some families it falls out that the posterity and neighbours and servants are godly but many complaints of degenerating of back-sliding shew it as often to be otherwise I wish it were true which Mr. C. writes though I find no proof of it That in all ages God hath cast it so in his providence that his people are not to be found in all places alike but we finde them together in some families and nations Now this is not faln out by chance but because God hath so made his choise hath been a God to believers and their seed in their generation and hath made them blessings for the conversion and edification of their children neighbours and acquaintance and that not onely by a common providence as he blesseth the corn and grass of the field but it is by vertue of a special word of blessing a creating word of promise which giveth a being to the things promised even this promise made to Abraham and in him to all believers Gen. 12 2 3. without which good examples and other means of education and conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God But I do not believe it sith neither hath the Covenant such a sense as Mr. C. gives it nor is there such eâ—perience proved and it is found that what good is done among children of believing parents is done as often by servants minister good company remarkable providences and other wayes as by parents endeavours and if without such a promise as Mr. C. imagines such means had not such efficacy I think not onely parents who believe no such promise but also ministers and others who expect a blessing upon their endeavours without Mr. Cs. promise would be discouraged in their work That which is said Psal. 105.8 though it prove the perpetuity of Gods Covenant with Abraham yet proves not the sense Mr. C. gives of the Covenant Nor doth that Luk. 19.9 yeeld any clearness to iâ— For salvation came to Zacheus his house in respect of his person and if it did to others in his house yet it is not said by vertue of the Covenant to Abraham as Mr. C. imagines and what Mr. C. saith about Acts 16.31 that it was spoken because of this promise to Abraham is his own gloss without any hint from the text and would infer this proposition that by vertue of Gods promise to Abraham upon the faith of an house-keeper his house should be saved which is contrary to constant experience of believing masters husbands parents having unbelieving servants wives children I grant Abraham to be the holy root Rom. 11.16 and that v. 28. the Jewes as touching the election are beloved for the Fathers sake and that they shall be graffed in again because the guâ—â—t once given to them God will not repent of and though I say not the Church bringeth forth children to Abraham yet I yeeld Jerusalem which is above the Evangelical Covenant doth and that the children of promise or of the free-woman are Abrahams seed all believers even of the Gentiles but this is so far from proving the blessing upon families and kinreds and Gods ordering in such manner his election as Mr. C. devised and would have perpetual from Psal. 105.8 that it rather proves the contrary For the breaking off the Jews and the ingraffing the Gentiles not of the families or kinred of the root Abraham but a wild Olive by nature proves the blessing not to be to families nor election so ordered as that to a thousand generations to all generations even to the worlds â—nd God ordinarily casts elect children upon elect parents Nor doth the citing of Isa. 59.20 which is Rom. 11.26 27. with the inference thereupon prove that God entails his blessing upon families from generation to generation but that God hath such a special love to the family of Abraham Isaac and Jacob that after a long breaking off that nation shall be restored again
and re-ingraffed for the Fathers sake which is there made the peculiar priviledge of Israel after the flesh But there is not a word in the Apostle Rom. 11. that shews that priviledge to have been enjoyed by believing Gentiles since their being graffed into the same root and Olive tree from whence the Jews were broken off Nor is it true For God hath removed his Candlestick from many places where there were famous Churches aâ—d from many kindreds families and people where there were formerly godly company and society so that now the progeny are become profane and Apostates and the Churches replenished with plants out of families in which a little while since Popery profaneness and viciousness did abound Noâ— do 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.38 make any thing for Mr. Cs. purpose as shall appear in the sequel Nor doth the application of Circumcisâ—on to the child or Abrahams title of Father of all them that believe prove the Covenant with Abraham in Mr. Cs. sense Nor is it true the application of Circumcision to the child is a necessary and essential part of that Ordinance For that is not an essential part of an Ordinaâ—ce without which it might be But the Ordinance of Circumcision might be and perhaps was at first without application to a child if thereby be meant an infant however if none but parents were circumcised as when the Circumcision was Josh. 5. it had been the Ordinance of Circumcision nevertheless when onely one proselyte aâ— age was circumcised it was the Ordinance Ergo. As for what Mr. C. answers to the objection from experience it is indeed a pulling down of what he had spent so much time to build up For if Gods blessing do not take effect through mens sin or defect of using means then the promise is not to families and kindreds in that absolute manner Mr. C. before described it then the promise is to the quality and diligence of the persons not to the relation then is the promise as well to any other so qualified and diligent as to the parent then is it false which he said before pag. 38. that the success was not from example and other means but a special word of blessing the promise to Abraham Finally if that be true which he hath pag. 35. which is false printed G 2. that although Gods promise be to carry his election so as to cast elect children upon elect parents yet he reserveth to himself and also useth in this a liberty namely ever and anon to be still breaking of 〈…〉 graffing in others into this holy root then what he said before p. 7. F 3. that God hath thus far limited himself and discovered his mind and purpose that he will ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents is false For what God reserveth to himself and useth a liberty in he hath not limited himself so far and if he ever and anon useth this liberty to be still breaking ofâ— some and graffing in others then he doth not ordinarily cast elect children upon elect parents for what is otherwise ever and anon and still is not so ordinarily much less still in being to a thousand generations to all generations even to the worlds end as he said pag. 33. G. So that Mr. Cs. discourse from his own words is found hitherto to contain mistakes uncertainty and in the main inconsistency with it self Let 's view whether in the rest there be any thing worthy of a Lord Mayors imprimatur A third thing Mr. C. observes as contained in the Lords promise unto Abraham is That by thus blessing and making believers blessings God would multiply his seed Gen. 22.16 So Gen. 17.2 5. That this is part of the Gospel and contained in the promise made to him and us is proved from Heb. 6.14 A further proof we have Gen. 15.5 alledged Rom. 4.3 18 22. as belonging to believing Gentiles the increase of whose number by means of Gods blessing believers so as to make them blessings as Abrahams seed was intended in that promise and as part of that Gospel which God preached unto Abraham There 's a promise that the Kingdome of Christ shall fill the world Dan. 2.35 44. To this purpose is that of our Saviour Matth. 13.31 32 33. Now the Lords making believers blessings and thereby multiplying Abrahams seed is that which makes his Kingdome thus to be like leaven whereby the whole world at last will be seasoned with the knowledge and love of Christ. Therefore this multiplying of believers so as to fill the world is made by the Apostle Rom. 4.13 to be part of Abrahams promise then mark what follows v. 16 17 18. This promise was made sure to all believers as well Gentiles as Jews Answ. 1. Why Mr. C. makes that the 3d. thing in Gods promise Gen. 22.17 18. which is the 2d and puts that as the 2d thing which is after the rest v. 18. and so the 4th I see no reason but onely that he foresaw that otherwise there had been no colour for this which he here infers that by thus blessing and making believers blessings God would multiply his seed Gen. 22.16 But the right order of the promises shews this conceit to be only Mr. Cs. fancy For in that the promise v. 18. is put last it is shewed thereby that it is a distinct promise and that it doth not express the manner how God would multiply Abrahams seed as Mr. C. conceives 2. It is true Gen. 15.5 is a Gospel promise to believing Gentiles Rom. 4.18 but not in Mr. Cs. sense that the increase of the number of believing Gentiles should be by means of Gods blessing believers so as to make them blessings as Abrahams seed in that God would cast ordinarily elect children oâ— elect parents and the lot of the Saints in neighbourhoods and places together But in this sense that Abraham should have an innumerable company of children or his seed among the Gentiles by faith who should be faithfullâ—â—raham â—â—raham Gal. 3.9 in their own persons but no mention is there of their being a blessing to others 3. That the Church of Christ should fill the world Dan. 2.35 44. that the Kingdome of Heaven as a grain of mustard seed or leaven Matth. 13.31 32 33. shall fill or season the world is granted but that it is meant in those places to be done in Mr. Cs. way is denied I do conceive it to have been meant of the Apostles preaching as me thinks Christs words Matth. 24.14 do import 4 That the promise of being heir of the world was to Abraham and his seed believing Gentiles is granted but that his or their being heir of the world did import any such blessing as Mr. C. imagines as if God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents or that any such thing is intimated by the Apostle v. 16 17 18. is denied Nor do I yet find any interpreter afore Mr. C. who hath so expounded the promâ—se In the opening of the 4th
remembred his Covenant for ever the word which hee commanded to a thousand generations But first The word is not meant of the command of a seal to bee applied to infants but of his own promise which hee will have firme as his Command Psalm 133.3 42.8 44.4 as the New Annotat and Piscat on the place which also appears from the words following which terme it Gods Covenant hee made with Abraham and his oath unto Isaac which is expressed vers 11. which cannot be understood of his Command to us what we should do but his promise of what hee himself will do Secondly the word commanded signifieth Gods decree within himself Or as Diodati in his note on the place Hee commanded which hee appointed by his soveraign and irrevocable decree as the word commanded is used Psalm 133.3 and elsewhere Thirdly To a thousand generations notes not just so many But as Piscator in his scholiâ— on the place it is by a synecdoche of the kinde as if it were said unto many ages And this must needs bee granted sith the Covenant however it bee granted to imply in the latent sense the promise of the heavenly inheritance yet in the patent sense must bee understood as v. 11.44 compared shew of the earthly Canaan which they had not a thousand generations but for many ages as Exod. 20.6 To thousand generations is meant not precisely so many and no more but a long time indefinite beyond three or four generations and thus must also bee understood the promise of the land of Canaan to bee for ever to be an everlasting possession that is for a long time as frequently it is used Exod. 21.6 Exod. 40.15 1 Sam. 2.35 Levit. 23.14 21 31 41 c. What hee saith of Baptism being the same for substance and equivalent to Circumcision unless hee mean it that infant Baptism and infant Circumcision are one equivalent to the other and the same for substance in this sense they are of no force not obliging Christians nor benefiting them it will be found in examining that which follows to have no truth Mr. C. adds And that this blessing upon families and posterity was signified held forth and sealed by circumcising the child appeareth further by that promise uttered in that phrase Deut. 30.6 which kind of expression intimates that the promise of the conversion of their children was held forth and confirmed in that seal As when the Apostle saith wee are baptized into one body is signified and sealed in Baptism our union with Christ in one body because else those words had been in no capacity to have been so used in that sense as they are used both by the Apostle and by Moses Answ. 1. The phrase of circumcising the heart Deut. 30 6 being used to express conversion or change of the heart doth shew indeed that there is some resemblance between them yet that it is so by institution is not proved no more then because by breaking up our fallow ground together with circumcising the same thing is siâ—nified Jer. 4.3 4. and by washing Isa. 1.16 therefore plowing and washing are by institution to bee used to that end 2. But be it granted that Circumcision was instituted to signifie the châ—nge of the heart as baptism our union with Christ in one body yet this proves not that it was to signifie and seal a promise of something future but rather what was already done For if it signifie as Baptism then it signifies conversion already effected Baptism being a sign that the person was united to Christ and to all his members by one spirit as the very terms 1 Cor. 12.13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wee have been baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we have been drencht shew And though the words Deut. 30.6 are a promise yet the term circumcise of it self and in like manner the use of circumcision according to the institution may as well note a thing done as a thing promised to bee done 3. Nevertheless let it bee granted that circumcision did in the institution of it note conversion of the heart and signified a promise of it as being a token of the Covenant in which that was covertly promised yet this proves not that it held forth a blessing upon families and posterity For there is no mention Deut. 30.6 of families though there be of posterity and that mention which is of posterity is of them not in their infant but adult estate and upon condition of the childs returning to God and obeying his voice as well as the parents as Mr. Baxter rightly observes in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. I may add that the promise there is expressed onely concerning one case to wit repentance in captivity v. 1 2.3 4. and the promise as appears from v. 5. is a promise peculiar to the Israelites 4. But were this further granted that thence might be proved that circumcision by institution signified the promise of conversion of posterity and that this were to Gentile believers yet this is nor that which Mr. C. would evince that the application of the seal to infants in that it was to infants sealed this promise or that the promise was sealed in Mr. Cs. sense so as that God would ordinarily cast elect children on elect parents and make parents a blessing so as that Abrahams seed by faith should be multiplied in families and nations by them What Mr. C. adds That the sign had not held proportion with the thing signified namely there had been nothing in the sign to signifie and seal that blessing upon posterity had the application of it to infants been left out is but a vain dictate For 1. if the sign held similitude with the thing signified though it held not proportion so as to be applied to all whose conversion was signified it might serve for the use of a sign as a conveyance to a Father may assure the childs interest and therefore that which Mr. C. dictates that for this reason infants were to be circumcised to seal that promise of believers being a blessing added to Adams Covenant is a vain conceit without proof sith it might have been as well assured if the parents had been circumcised onely as well as when the male infants onely were circumcised And that which he saith further is most false and vain Nor indeed had there been any use of the application of it to the infant nor that made a part of the Ordinance had there not been such a branch in the Covenant as a blessing upon families and posterity to be thereby signified and sealed For besides this that Mr. C. proves neither that branch in the Covenant nor that use of infant Circumcision it is clear by Stephens speech Act. 7.5 6 7 8. that Abraham circumcised Isaac in assurance of the land of Canaan and that he received the Covenant of Circumcision to that end and that the circumcising of infants had this use to signifie Christ to come seems plainly
justified believers of all nations Nor do Mr. Cs. reasons prove the contrary For 1. though others faith might be as strong yet no ones faith was so â—minently exemplary the time and other circumstances considered and this is apparent from Rom. 4.18 19 20 21. 2. Abraham had that exemplary faith and promise and declaration of God which no Saint had before in the manner I have explained it 3. This was fit to denominate him Father of believers as Sara the Mother of obedient and well doing wives 1 Pet. 3.6 by her exemplary obedience to her husband and we are termed children of God by following him Ephes 5.1 wicked men children of the Devil by doing his lusts Joh. 8.44 It is true we are to look to other examples chiefly Christs Heb 12 1 2. yet none of meer men so eminently believed as Abraham and therefore no meer sinfull man is propounded as a Copy or pattern equal to him As for Mr. Cs. reason it is not right For 1. Mr. Cs. additional promise in his sense is but a figment 2. There is not the least hint in Scripture of that as thâ— reason of the title 3. If he were the first Father that received this blessing then it was two thousand years and more afore God ordered his eleâ—tion as Mr. C. imagines then believing parents had not this blessing before whereas if there were such a blessing it was rather before then after Abrahams time for we find not any setled Ministery by which the spiritual seed was multiplied afore Abrahams time therefore it is more likely to have been by believing parents but after Abrahams time we read of Prophets and Apostles Priests and Teachers appointed to that end And if Abraham were the first who received this blessing then this was not perpetual and so the application of the seal to infants not moral sith the foundation of it begâ—n but in Abraham Sure I am this directly crosseth Mr. Richard Baxters conceit of infants visible Churchmembership by promise Gen. 3.15 which I leave to them to contend about What Mr. C. saith of the reason of the title of Abrahams seed given to believers is quite besides the Scripture Rom. 4.11 16. Gal. 3.7 Joh. 8.39 And what he saith of one believers being ordinarily the means of conversion of another is true rather of others specially preachers of the Gospel then parents housholders Princes and I wish it were better considered by him whether by his dictates all along in making the multiplying of the spiritual seed to be by every believers being a blessing to families and nations by ascribing ordinarily conversion hereunto and that p. 38. not onely by common providence or so much by good education and example but by vertue of a special word of blessing a creating word of promise to all believers without which other means of conversion had not had such efficacy and power in turning sinners to God do not cross the Apostles speech Ephes. 2.20 be not contrary to the experience both of the first and continued gathering of the Churches of Christ and do not indeed undermine and blow up a select Ministery for conversion as being useless without assurance of Gods blessing God having provided another way and ordinarily working by it according to a special promise And how much this tends to justifie that disorder of every gifted brothers pretended prophesying and teaching in the Churches which is the occasion of the jangling and schisms by which Churches are torn asunder and perverted is easily discernable But of this onely by the way What Mr. C. hath summed up p. 70. hath been examined and found to be a fardel of mistakes Let 's view the rest Those insinuations which are p. 71. as if Antipaedobaptists did easily part with ancient entailed priviledges wherein the Saints have rejoyced for so many ages wanted so much compassion on their children as not to blot their names out of Heaven or thrust them out of the Kingdome of Christ into the Kingdome of Satan have been so often discovered to be false and gross abuses as that were not men resolved to use any artifices to uphold an ill cause by creating prejudices against their adversaries they would leave them But Mr. C. thinks to prove infant Baptism from hence and thus he argues SECT LXXX Mr. Cs. conceit as if Gen. 17.9 were a command in force to Abrahams spiritual seed in the N. T. is shewed to be vain IF this be granted that the promise made to Abraham Gen. 17. especially that part of iâ— v. 8. concerning Canaan to bee an everlasting possession to his seed bee of such extent and made also to his spiritual seed of the New Testament it will follow that that command of God in those words next following v. 9. is to bee meant also of his spiritual seed even in our dayes and as a command that now lieth upon the same spiritual seed in all generations in as much as that command is brought in with a therefore upon the promise made to the same seed in the words v. 8. Answ. Hitherto Paedobaptists have been wont to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed and the command v. 9 10 11 12 13.14 which it seems Mr. C. dares not rest on but takes another way and yet seems not very certain what to pitch upon For whereas p. 70. to clear the duty of infant Baptism he sums up his suppositions That God made to Abraham Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. an additional promise of believers being a blessing to families and nations that for confirmation of this hee added a seal to wit Circumcision that the application of it to infants was part of the token of the Covenant thereby that additional promise was sealed in reference to them Abraham was called the Father of all them that believe who would not think that he would have inferred infant Baptism from these suppositions and the connâ—xion between his additional promise and seal But in stead thereof as if all hee had before discoursed had been out of the way hee meant to take whether because there is a great distance between the command Gen. 17.9 and the promise Gen. 22.17 18. or whether he saw his exposition would not stand good he now goes another way to work and thinks to deduce infant Baptism from the connexion between the promise Gen. 17.8 and the precept v. 9. and his inference is thus made The promise is concerning Canaan to be an everlasting possession to Abrahams seed ergo to his spiritual seed in the N. T if so then the command lieth upon the spiritual seed still v. 9. and this the word therefore v. 9. implies That precept ties onely to keep the Covenant by sealâ—ng with the seal of it their children v. â—0 explains what seal should be for that time now another is come in the room of it which is for substance the same and equivalent to it parents are
the practise of the Gospel worship but onely baptized And so Mr. Cs. answer is a strengthening of the argument Enough in answer to Mr. C. being unwilling to make more exceptions on passages which need correction why I have said so much the reason is given sect 77. SECT LXXXIII Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision as Mr. M. in his 4th conclusion would have it IN the Defence of his 4th and 5th concl against my Examen Mr. M. saith he will contract and accordingly I shall be brief in my reply He grants the order of circumcising infants is repealed as I answered in examining his 4th concl but would have it added that by Gods order Baptism succeeds in the room of it which I have refuted Then upon my saying that Circumcision was not a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant he censures this as pure Anabaptism leaving out injuriously my limitation to all that were circumcised which if fairly added had cleared me and perhaps if the so called Anabaptists had been rightly understood they had been found as innocent as my self in this thing I see enough in Paedobaptists dealing with me to shew how great likelihood there is that the words of the Anabaptists in Germany were perverted Mr. M. p. 180 181. excepts against me for saying that Ishmael and Esau had no part in the Covenant denies that Ishmael had no part in it when he himself grants that they did never partake of the spiritual graces of the Covenant which is all one with that which I say that the Covenant of grace was not made to them they had no part in it For sure they to whom the Covenant of grace is made and have part in it are all partakers of the spiritual graces of the Covenant or else God keeps not his promise and for this I bring Gen. 17.19 20 21. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. though I needed not having Mr. Ms. own confession and therefore it is most false he saith I bring not one shadow of a proof for what I say But Mr. M. thinks to maintain his speech that Ishmael had part in the Covenant in that he was reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant and obliged to seek after the spiritual part of it to have his heart circumcised and to believe in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed Answ. 1. It is contrary to Gen. 7.19 20 21. to say that Ishmael by Circumcision did belong to the Covenant it runs upon this palpable mistake that every one that was circumcised had thereby the Covenant sealed to him 2. Those that were uncircumcised all the people of the world were obliged to seek after the spiritual graces of the Covenant to be holy to believe yet this doth not prove they had a part in the Covenant and therefore this answer of Mr. M. is frivolous And so likewise is that which he saith in answer to my words not rightly set down my words were not right to Evangelical promises or any other benefit that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason I added and adequate why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the duty of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together In which 1. he shews not whose motive it was Gods or mans If he mean it was Gods to command it it is nothing to the purpose to shew right to the Covenant of grace to have been the proper adequate reason of the persons to be circumcised if mans motive it is false whether we understand it of â—he circumcised who were infants and therefore had no motive to it but were passive onely or the circumciser for in â—brahams circumcising Ishmael Mr. M. saith I have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward sign of the Covenant and a vâ—sible â—â—anding in the Church though he who administers the seal might by revelation know the inward grace is wanting Were his answer granâ—ed yet it proves not the contrary to my speech but confirms it though this point be one of the hinges on which his first main argument turns For iâ— it be true that the adequate reason oâ— peâ—sons circumcising was not right to the Evangelical promises or other benefit in the Covenant but Gods precâ—pt onely then the pillar of Mr. Ms argument fâ—lls to the ground All that are in the covenant are to be sealed it being onely true thus All in the Covenant whom God haâ—h commanded 〈◊〉 sealed are to be sealed What he saith after that I grant what is in controversie because I grant men may have a visible membership in the Church though they be not elected or sanctified it is alike frivolous it being never in controversie but whether any may be said to be in or under the Covenant of grace or to have the Covenant of grace made to them who are non elect and never sanctified That which Mr. M. p. 182. calls a piece of odd Divinity that Circumcision should seal righteousness to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised being understood as I express it of Abrahams personal Circumcision is the Apostles express Divinity Rom. 4.11 12. whose scope say New England Elders in answer to the 3d. and 4th position p. 65. rightly in that place is not to define a Sacrament nor to shew what is the proper adequate subject of the Sacrament but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God not by works but by faith c. Nor is this any more odd Divinity then Mr. Ms. who asserts women virtually circumcised in the males That which he saith that visible professours have a visible right to the spiritual part of Circumcision I conceive false For though they had a right to Circumcision or Baptism which they might receive of men yet they had no right at all to forgiveness of sins justification adoption salvation which are onely from God and onely true believers had right to That which he saith p. 182. that Circumcision was given the Jews in reference to their Church state not in reference to their civil state is not true but said upon a mistake as if the Church state and Civil were different in the Jewish Commonwealth That which he confesseth that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God is enough to shew that interest in the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision but the command of God and therefore without shewing a command for infant Baptism this is no good argument they are in the Covenant therefore to be baptized which enervates all Mr. Ms. dispute But he adds The Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to and this fully answers the objection for it was
because preached by Christ himself and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows Mr. M. adds To have nothing in lieu of the administrations then as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right But to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirm Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance which is Christ nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 10 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures signs types and sacraments of spiritual things so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows but Christ we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us nor did they make us compleat in Christ nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptism doth now to ours but did it not also belong to the substance Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith of Circumcision of heart c. Answ. Abrahams was not every ones Circumcision Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but do they not belong to it Answ. They do but not as of the substance of the thing sealed or the inheritance purchased or the Covenant whereby it is promised but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed Now surely he should use non sense who should â—erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised being neither essential nor integral parts of them but onely adjuncts without which they may be or not be entirely To my saying That 't is so far from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision that it is a benefit to want it God not appointing it I answer saith Mr. M. then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism that it had been a priviledge to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so far from being a privilegde to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it Sure that is a strange kind of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater be to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech he hath left out that Circumcision was a priviledge belonging not to the substance of the Covenant but to the administration which then was a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the heathens but a burthen in comparison of us which was in that it signified Christ to come the obligation of the law for which reasons I judged it a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the place and uâ—e of it but Christ manifested in the flesh because if we had any thing in the use of it Christ must be expected to come in the flesh and Jesus denied to be the Christ and we debtors to keep the whole law And then I determined absolutely that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children not a loss in respect of duty God having not appointed it nor of priviledge God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted and my speech misrepresented but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils For he supposeth our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism but I know not any priviledges of the Covenant of grace but effectual calling justification adoption sanctification glorification and if there be any other termed saving graces or which accompany salvation and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism especially when administred to infants is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a priviledge God not appointing it nor promising any thing upon the use of it nor declaring his acceptance of it which is the case of infant Baptism Sure I know none but would think it a burthen to be baptized or be covered with water though but for a moment were it not God commanded it and accepted of it as a service to him And the like is true of Circumcision the want of which being so painfull was a benefit but for the command and promise of God signified by it Such actions as are no way priviledges but sins without Gods precept and promise it is better to want them then have them or act them such is infant Baptism and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision it is a heavy burthen no benefit now but a yoke of bondage I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace and he answers That Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance not as a part of it but as a means of applying it Which speech how frivolous it is is shewed before sect 25. p. 165 166. and in this section Or that the want of Circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a loss of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children To this he saith And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal Answ. 1. If it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration then it is a priviledge to have nothing succeed it in its use which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace is shewed before sect 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured but if as good assurance and estate be by a
I have oft shewed in Mr. M. Mr. B. and Mr. Bl. to let fall such passages especially in opening the institution Matth. 28.19 in opposing Papists Prelatists Antibaptists as overthrow their disputes for infant baptism and therefore they will not stand to them when they are urged against them but by some shift elude them It is false which Mr. Rutherford saith that this proposition Those to whom the promise of the Covenant does belong these should be baptized if universally understood is Peters Acts 2.38 39. or that this assumption The promise of the Covenant is to you and your children is the express words of Peter The offer of Christ in the preached Gospel is not the call meant Acts 2 3â— nor are all such as to whom the offer is made exterâ—ally in covenant and such to whom the Covenant is made and should be baptized though I grant if they give a professed consent to the call of the Gospel they are bapâ—izable Calvins words are no proof against those who yeild not what he saith of the Anabaptists of his time Mr Rutherfords words are too vain for a man of his name which say that believing children are not children but men of age My exposition of Acts 2.39 neither excludes sucking children nor is the inclusion proved by him from Matth. 2. â—8 1 Cor. 7.14 the sense Mr. Rutherford makes the onely sense of Acts 2.39 the promise and word of the Covenant is preached to you and your children in you is false for then it had been true that it was preached then to all afar off which is manifestly false and vain for it had been no comfort to them sith it might bee preached without their benefit nor is this to be externally in covenant except in Mr. Rutherfords gibberish both under the Old and New Testament In the Oâ—d persons were so by birth without preaching in the New they onely who profess faith The other sense Mr. Rutherford sets down is none of mine nor is it needful I should answer the objections against it and the terms the Lord hath internally covenanted with you I take to be non-sense no covenanting with us being an immanent but a transeunt act My sense is fully set down here Sect. 13 c. and proved I grant no more Covenant favour holden forth to their children Acts 2.39 then to the Pagans children except in priority of tender I make not external covenant holiness ceremonial holiness out of daâ—e nor can he cleer it or that by any thing I say the words Acts 2.39 must be in a contradictory way expounded to wit the promise is no more made to your children so long as they are infants then to Devils which seeing hee mentions Mr. Ms. words but a little before I have reason to conceive reflect on my self and if so they have too great a shew of Diabolism Right to hear the preached Gospel and a Covenant or Gospel warrant peculiar to believers children is such talk as I understand not I think hearing is a Duty obliging all Pagans have not onely warrant but also command to hear it it is not onely lawfull but necessary The children of the most holy Christian Gentile believers are not Christians till they believe and both they and their parents when they believe are still Heathens the term Heathens being all one with Gentiles contradistinct to Jews and so used here by Mr. Rutherford himself pag. 74. in words before cited and I sometimes admire that some learned men should suggest this to Readers and hearers as a hâ—inous thing to term them Heathens when they must be so if they be not Jews though most holy Christians The term Pagans if it bee all one with professed infidels positively I grant it belongs not to our children yet they are infidels negatively till they believe and are so accounted of them that admit them not to the Lords Supper as well as of those that admit them not to Baptism unto which actual profession of faith is as well required as to the Lords Supper To neither hath a man any right by Covenant although by the Covenant he hath right to the benefits of the Gospel Baptism and the Lords Supper are neither of them formally benefiâ—s or seals of the Covenant of grace though by conâ—equent in the right use of them such benefitâ— accrue to men by them They are hoth rites appointed by Christ the one to be the baptized his signe whereby he professeth repentance and faith in Christ and engageth himself solemnly to adhere to Christ as his disciple the other whereby heâ— signifies his remembrance of Christs death both our duties and a right to duty sounds to mee like non-sense I know no Anabaptist that ignorantly confounds the promise and the thing promised the Covenant and benefits covenanted But this I aver that when God promiseth and covenanteth they are connex there is no man to whom Cod promiseth or covenanteth but he hath or shall have the thing promised or covenanted And this I learn from the Apostle Rom. 9.8 who makes onely the chosen sons of promise as Mr. Rutherford here pag. 77. expounds him and that is as Gal. 3.16 he expresseth himself to Abraham and his seed were the promises made or said that is Christ personal or mystical or both and to no other And sure the Apostle Rom. 9.6 did think it blasphemy to say that God had promised and those he promised to should not have the thing promised for then Gods word should fall and he be a liar If Gods conditional promise be a Covenant yet it is made onely to them that perform the condition He that believeth and is baptized shall bee saved is not an universal promise to all men whether believers or not but onely to so many as shall believe 'T is true we can exclude none because we cannot exempt any from believing and therefore we are to make an indifferent offer to any but God in his intention excludes many and his promise is not made to them whom he excludes nor are they under his Covenant or in covenant with him in respect of his act of promising though they may be said to bee in Covenant or under the Covenant in respect of their own act of promising I grant the command is to persons whether they believe or not obey or not for that is not an enunciative speech that signifies any thing true or false but is in the imperative mood and extendeth to all men whatsoever so as whosoever doth not as the command bids sins But when Mr. Rutherford saith the promise is to you and so are the commands and threatnings whether ye believe or not whether ye transgress or transgress not if an Anabaptist falsly so called may have the boldness to tell a Professour in Divinity in an University in Scotland of ignorance I should tell him he is mistaken in saying the promise is to you whether you believe or no the threatning is to you whether you transgress or no. For
exhorted to be baptised who are under the same Covenant yet not without repentance and faith foregoing their Baptism witâ—out which the promise warrants not Baptism There is no such command Gen. 17.7 8. that all these in Covenant should be marked with the initiatory seal nor is Baptism instituted in place of Circumciâ—â—on and if it were yet mâ—re is needful to warrant infant baptism There is as plain precept Acts 2.38 8.36 37. Mark 16.16 Matth. 28.19 against inâ—ant Baptism as is against infant Communion 1 Cor. 11.28 Wee have good consequences out of the word against infant Baptism without arguing from the Covenant of grace which Mr. Rutherfurd may see in the 2d part of this Review sect 5 and none against the Holy Ghost but from him That the promises of the Covenant of grace are expresly to infants of the New Testament is more then I find Acts 2.39 or elsewhere Dipping in rivers need not be onerous and may be without danger to women with child Virgins some sorts of diseased persons in winter in cold countries and it will require more strength in dispute then either Mr. Baillee or Mr. Baxter have shewed or I finde yet in Mr. Rutherfurd to prove dipping in rivers though Baptism be not necessary to be done in rivers to be against the word the second third and fourth Commandements And against sprinkling or perfusion instead of Baptism there is so much said in my Addition to the Apology against Mr. Baillee Mr. Rutherfurds Colleague and delivered to Mr. Rutherfurd himself and since printed with a Letter to him as is for ought I know yet unanswered All Mr. Rutherfurds talk pag. 98 99. that now infants of believers are casten out for no fault of the Covenant of grace and his aggravations thereof are to be taken for meer calumnies and since the printing of my Exâ—men there is reason to judge them to be thus wilfully vented by Mr. Rutherfurd and till he name the Anabaptists and cite the place I can take it for no other then a false accusation which he saith of the Anabaptists that they teach infants to be born without sin Mr. Rutherfurd dictates without proof pag. 100. that they were covenanting parents and believers that brought the little children Mark 10.13 14 that they were not diseased or possessed that he would have the whole spece of infants at all time â—o come to him and those infants might bee blessed as elect ones though no marks were given to parents or others whereby to discern elect children these being no direction for them to bring children to Christ under that notion It is false that Anabaptists rebuke persons that bring children to Christ as the disciples did Mar. 10.13 Or that Christ instates infants of believing parents as members of the visible Church What Mr. â—obbet hath said of that act of Christ is refelled Review part 2. sect 19. and that the Kingdome of God is that of glory is made good against Mr. Blake there sect 18 and not refused by me I know no absurdity in it to say Christ might bless infants of Pagans What designe Christ might have or had besides Mr. Rutherfurds conceived purpose to hold forth the common interest of the whole spece of infants within the visible Church is shewed there sect 17. against Mr. Baxter I do granâ— the blessing Mark 10.16 to be personal and the chiefest blessing beyond visible Churchmembership and though we finde not proof that Christ blessed the whole race of infants of covenanting parents yet it is false that we make them blessed onely as symboles of humility or that the blessing was some complemental salutation or that as Mr R. saith of Anabâ—ptists after hiâ— calumniating manner wee will have them without Christ and the Covenant and under the curse of God but grant that they were blessed with the blessing of the Covenant of grace and that many other infants are so Whether they were parents or believers in Christ as the Messiah who brought the children Matth. 19.13 is uncertain nor do I say or need I they had a saith grounded upon a possibility of election separated from the Covenant nor do I deny that infants have their share of salvation by the Covenant or that a covenanted seed is prophesied to be added to the Jews under the New Testament nor doth any thing I say infer that the children of believers under the New Testament must be a cursed seed yet there is none of the Texts Mr. Rutherfurd brings which proves a prediction that the natural seed of believers as such shall be blessed and in the Covenant of grace nor that their infant seed shall be visible Churchmembers in the Christian Church But they are all impertinently alledged some being meant of the Jews iâ—crease in Judâ—â— after their return from Babylon some of the effectual calling of the Gentiles and most of them so far cleared before that I count it needless to make answer to each of the Texts by themselves And Mr. Rutherfurds discourse is so loose and full of impertinencies and incoherencies that I shall onely animadvert on some passages till the whole bee brought to some distinct Scholastique form He tels us pag 168. That external covenanting goes before internal covenanting as the means before the end and the cause before the effect for faith comes by hearing of a sent preâ—cher Rom. â—0 14 and the preaching of the Gospel is a saving means of begetting a new heart and of a new spirit Hence 1. All must be first externally in covenant before they can be internally and really in covenant In which speech he seemâ— to conceive external covenanting to bee either preaching or hearing a preacher else his reason had been vain But what non-sense scribling is this to term preaching or hearing covenanting A person may and we may conceive some do preach and hear who never externally covenant Sure covenanting is promising but so is not either preaching or hearing And if Mr. Rutherfurds words be true no infant can be internally and really in Covenant who doth not preach or hear His talk is as vain Of the Lord being a God simply to some and no more but a God to them in regard of outward Church-priviledges but to others more then a God in truth and righteousness not to all as if God might be a God to some not in truth and righteousness or the being a God to his people contained not the greatest blessings contrary to Lu. 20.37 38. Heb. 11.16 His further talk pag. 109. from Matth. 19.14 is without proof and all shewed to be vain in the places before cited Though the houshold sometimes comprehend infants yet not so still nor Acts 16. as is shewed Review part 2. sect 20. Anabaptists neither do nor must grant if infants be in Covenant they ought to receive the seal of the Covenant If Rom. 11.16 be meant of holiness onely intentionally and not giving actual right to Baptism then the holiness there proves not infants to
simply everlasting Mr. Cr. adds But the truth is it is not onely meant of the natural seed but of the spiritual seed of Abraham both whereof successively and in part if not altogether concomitantly for there were always Proselytes iâ— is everlasting or to the end of the world Answ. If Mr. Cr. meâ—n that to the natural seed who are also the spiritual seed the Covenant Gen. 17.7 is simply everlasting I grant it but this doth no way advantage Mr. Cr. For then it will onely follow that to such infants as are not onely the natural seed of Abraham or a believer but also are themselves believers God hath promised they shall be in Covenant under the Gospel which would not be true of all the infants of believers or any but the elect If he mean it as it is there meant as appears by the next words v. 8. being understood of the natural seed of Abraham of the nation or people of Israel and not of a remnant of them it can be true onely of a limited everlastingness and not at all of the Gentile believers infants and so is not at all for Mr. Crs. purpose But he tels me It follows not unless the same word in adjoyning verses must necessarily signifie the same thing which if so an argument might be drawn against the Infiniteness and Eternity of the Deity from these words God of Gods and Lord of Lords Gods and Lords in the latter signifies creatures therefore in the former but how inconsequently in both a child may judge Answ. My arguing needs not proceed thus but is good against Mr. Cr. thus The term everlasting signifies a limited everlastingness afore the Gospel v. 8. therefore it may be so meant v. 7. and if meant of the body of the Israelitish people who were the natural seed of Abraham it must be so meant otherwise it were not true And for his instance I think the arguâ—ent not good as he makes it yet it follows the term God doth not necessarily of it self infer infiniteness and eternity but when it is applâ—ed to the most High God the Creatour who is the God of Gods because it is sometimes spoken of Creatures But Mr. Cr. tels me That v. 8. can be true onely in one of these senses that they had title to all the Land of Canaan though not actual possession of it or that it was a type of the everlasting spiritual Canaan in which senses from Abraham they possessed it or that the plenary and full possession of the whole begins at the conversion of the Jews and shall last from thence to the end of the world without interruption because neither Abraham nor his seed had actual possession of all the Land of Canaan none of these will support Mr. T. his declining cause Answ. That the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 must be meant of that part of the earth so called is manifest from the expression wherein thou art a stranger or the land of thy sojournings and might be if need were proved by multitudes of other Scriptures And that the seed of Abraham is that which is natural and afore their later conversion is apparent from v. 9 10. where the seed to whom the land of Canaan is promised are enjoyned to be circumcised and the term possession v. 8. cannot be meant of a mere title for that 's implied in the words will give but the possessiâ—n is distinct from it and consequent upon it therefore I choose rather to untie Mr. Crs. knot by expounding it thus I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession but not altogether thou shalt possess a part in thy time as a pledge of the whole as his burying place was and thy seed in Joshua's and Davids time shall possess the whole and this shall be not onely a place to sojourn in but a possession for them to dwell in and that everlasting that is fâ—r many agâ—s as Phineâ—as his Priesthood is termed everlasting Numb 25.13 so long as they shall keep my Covenant and observe my statutes Now this will serve thus far to support my cause which is still standing and not declining to shew that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 as it is made to the natural seed of Abraham is termed everlasting that is for a limited time afore the Gospel which sense also the terms for ever and everlasting have Exod. 12.14 21.6 Numb 25.13 c and so the major Proposition of Mr. Cr. justly denied He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel Sect. 5. Mr. Cr. endeavours to draw Gal. 3.8 to his purpose to prove a continuance of the Gospel Covenant to the end of the world to Abraham and his seed by paraphrasing it thus That the Scripture foretold that God would justifie the Heathen through faith that is the partition Walâ— should be pulled down and the Heathen nations should profess faith as visible members whereof some should be actually justified as members invisible But besides his inept expression of heathen nations which is all one with nations nations he abuseth the text by paraphrasing through faith thus that the nations should profess faith as visible members when it should be shall be true believers as Abraham was and would justifie the nations by whereof some should be actually justified whereas the text mentions no other then should be justified and v. 9. terms them they that are of the faith who are blessed with Faithfull Abraham and onely meant by the nations v. 8. Mr. Cr. tels me 1. That I injuriously mis-report his allegation as that he urged this argument drawn from Gal. 3.8 to prove that Abrahams natural seed were promised to be in Covenant under the Gospel whereas he urged it to prove the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to have been a Gospel Covenant made with Abraham and his seed that is proprofessors and believers whether carnally descended from him or no. But sure he that reads his first argument in his Sermon p. 88 89. and his Defence p. 256. where his words are the minor I prove from Gen. 17.7 where the infants of believing parents are implied it being a Covenant not only established with Abraham but with his seed after him in their generatâ—ons for an everlasting Covenant by vertue of which Isaac and all succeeding male infants were circumcised now sure these were Abrahams natural seed and here the Covenant is everlasting and therefore according to Mr. Crs. reasoning to extend to the end of the world and the infants of believing parents who are their natural seed are he saith implied which can be no otherwise then as Abraham is imagined to be taken for each believer and the believers natural seed proportionably correspondent to Abrahams natural seed by prerogative of birth as he there speaks and then adds In Gal. 3.8 there is implied Abrahams seed in that it was a
Gospel Covenant and that in him all nations shall be blessed and is directly for me for it asserts the Covenant and in that justification to the believing Gentiles not onely from Abrahamâ— promise but also a promise to them and their seed which plainly shews that he imagines Gal. 3.8 the Gospel Covenant to be a promise to believers and their seed who are their natural seed as in Abraham his seed is implied which conformably must be his natural And if Mr. Cr. did not in the dispute mean Abrahams natural seed he went from the point to be proved and by me denied that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was not simply everlasting to the natural seed of Abraham sith they were dispossessed of Canaan His suggestions therefore of my using officious untruths and pious frauds are but the venome of his spirit which throughout his book he discovers and most pestilently in that Section for which the Lord rebuke him What he next saith that when I say the thing promised Gal. 3.8 was justification and that of the heathen and that through faith therefore this text proves not Abrahams natural seed in Covenant under the Gospel is As if all this might not be and yet some of the natural seed of Abraham be in covenant under the Gospel who professed were justified and had faith as well as the heathen which I grant but then they were not onely Abrahams natural seed but also his spiritual to which I grant the Covenant is made Gen. 17.7 and is everlasting and if he can prove infants of believers to be such there 's no question but they are in Covenant under the Gospel and to be baptized till then he can never prove either from Gen. 17.7 or Gal. 3.8 that Abrahams natural seed much less infants of believing parents to be in the Gospel covenant which whether hee had reason to bee ashamed of attempting the Reader may judge That the entring into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11. was a tranâ—â—unt fact and not a thing perpetually binding I had thought none would deny nor argue as Mr. Crag doth it was by command Deut. 29.1 they werâ— v. 29. to do the words of the Law and that was a command and the revealed things belong to them and their children for ever therefore the entring into Covenant v. 10 11. was a command perpetually binding under the Gospel which is too frivolous to spend time in answering and his argument that if wives and servants were in Covenant under the Gospel much more infants is alike frivolous â—ith he himself makes no other then believing wives and servants in Covenant under the Gospel which when he proves of infants their being in Covenant will not be denied This is enough in answer to that Section and most of the 8th and 9th Sections of the third part I said his allegation is vain of Heb. 8.6 to prove that if infants were in covenant under the Law they are in covenant under the Gospel whereas the meliority of the Covenant is not placed in the extent to the sort of persons He asks me what then will it follow if a Covenant was made to no more then before therefore not to all that were before Answ. No yet it will follow that the text is vainly alledged to prove the co-extension to persons that speaks not at all of that thing nor is it at all to the purpose that it is extended to more to wit to Gentiles For 1. however that text speaks not of it 2. It is extended to more nations of the world besides the Jews but to none but believers of those nations and consequently not to infants of believing parents as such That the new Covenant contains promises of better things then the old Covenant and differs more then in administrations is shewed before Sect. 43. and yet theâ—e is no such thing implied as if there were salvation in any other then Jesus Christ unless he could prove salvation were by the promises of the Law My third Paradox as he cals it that the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers is proved before Sect. 33. That there are in the Gospel Covenant promises of external ordinances made to all visible members is more then Mr. Cr. proves or any other and therefore I count it a figment I know none but spiritual promises in it which Mr. Cr. grants are made absolutely and terminated or performed onely to the elect and invisible members which is the same with my Paradox but hath more assertors then his most gross speech that the meliority of the Covenant consists principally in outward ordinances manner of administration and dispensation extent and amplitude of the proposal not of grace and glory He adds of which there was alwayes the same reason Enoch Abraham Eliah Moses were as well justified by faith which is true but not according to the Covenant of the Law but by the Covenant of the Gospel which it seems Mr. Cr. understands not though he assume the title of a Preacher of the Gospel Mr. Cr. saith of me His last assertion is that because the promises of the Gospel are not to any other then the elect and true believers therefore they are not to infants as the natural seed of believers The antecedent is proved to be false for though the spiritual part of Gospel promises is absolutely performed and terminated to the elect yet they are conditionally proposed to all Professors and the external part which consists in administration of ordinances is equally belonging to all visible members But are the promises to all professors because they are conditionally proposed to them If so we may say the promises are to the most obstinate infidels to eveâ—y man in the world for to them they are conditionally proposed Sure this is not according to the doctrine of the Scripture which makes the promises to bee the believers inheritance 2 Cor. 1.20 2 Pet. 1.4 Gal. 3.16 4.28 Heb 6.12 17. according to the doctrine of Protestanâ—s the Saints Legacy yea Paedobaptists make them their priviledge Rom. 9.4 though the promises there were other promises As for an external part of Gospel promises which consists in administration of ordinances equally belonging to all visible members it is a mere figment no where in Scripture And the sayings of Mr. Cr. Part. 3. Sect. 11. p. 261. Christ is said Heb. 8.6 to be a Mediator of a better Covenant which could noâ— be if infants that were in covenant under the Law were out of covenant under the Gospel and is grounded upon this impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible covenant that the reason of baptizing or circumcising a person is their birth right tuition self-profession whereby they are visibly admitted into covenant that what he hath said Examen part 3. sect 1. Antipaed part 1. sect 5. touches not the true state of the Controversie but is a confused
of particular infants of true believers moâ—â— probable till the contrary appear by them and for the full certainty I leave it as to me uncertain If we have but a probable hope of the salvation of men at age it is no absurdity in my apprehension to say we have but probable hope of their salvation yet we have a greater degree of probability in our hopes of the salvation of such as have in appearance spent their lives in a holy course then of infants so dying 2. Saith he It is as much as I desire for if their salvation be probable then they are visibly or seemingly or to our judgement in a state of salvation and so must needs be visible members of the Church How dare Mr. T. refuse to take those for visible Churchmembers whose salvation is probable when he hath no more but probability of the salvation of the best man in the world Answ. 1. I have often told Mr. B. that to be seemingly or to our judgement in a state of salvation is not all one as to be such visibly and that such may be no visible Churchmembers whose salvation is seeming or probable to our judgement 2. Though I have but probability of the salvation of the best man in the world yet I have a certainty of his profession by which I take him to be a visible Churchmember and not by the probability of his salvation and this I dare do and I wonder how Mr. B. against the current of all the N. T. dare do otherwise 3. But saith he doth not this contradict what went before And I wish he do not contradict it again in his proofs His first proof of the probability is from some general indefinite promises but what these promises are he tels us Apol. pag. 64. By general and indefinite promises be means such as determine not the kinde of good promised nor the particular person and therefore are true if performed to any person in any sort of good and conditional upon condition of faith and obedience Answ. 1. If it determine not the kind of good formally nor virtually nor contain it generically then how doth it make it probable 2. And if it neither determine the person nor give 〈◊〉 ground to determine how then doth it become probable to that person 3. And how then can that promise give hopes to the faithfull of the salvation of their infants which is verified if performed to any person in any sort of good as if it were but to one infant in a nation in reprieving him a day from damnation If it intend more then this then it is not verified or fulfilled in this much if it intend no more then how doth it make their salvation probable 4. And sure the conditional promises which he mentioneth requiring faith and repentance are little to the benefit of infants if these conditions are required of themselves in their infancy And for his other two grounds of hope viz. the favour of God to the parents and experience they are comfortable helps to second the promise but of themselves without a word would give us no ground of Christian hope in such matters as justification and salvation are Answ. I perceive no contradiction in my words 1. By putting in those words nor contain it generically he intimates as if I had denied the promises I mention to contain generically the good of justification and salvation whereas I termed the promises expresly general and cited Psal. 103.17 18. Psal. 112 â— c. which mention Gods righteousness and blessedness and so may comprehend eternal righteousness and blessedness and thereby the justification and salvation of infants becomes probable though it be not certain sith Gods righteousness and blessedness may be conferred in another kind As if a rich King promise money to a mans children it 's probable he will give them gold thouâ—h it be not certain 2. Though the particular person be not determined yet sith the qualification of the person is expressed to be the generation of the righteous it is probable that it is meant of each till the contrary appears as if a man promise to make such a mans children heirs this is probable of every one till it appear otherwise and yet not certain 3. I have shewed how especially if we consider that favours are wont to be amplified to the most Though Gods intentions are not fulfilled perhaps with so litle yet the words may be verified if no more but temporal blessedness be given 4. The conditional promises I confess give us but slender hope of infants by themselves yet with general indefinite promises declarations of Gods favour to his people and experience they yeeld a strong ground of hope of the justification and salvation of infants of believers though not certain and sure as Mr. B. would have but how short he is in proof will appear in that which followes SECT LXXIIII Mr. Bs. allegations p. 76 77 78. shew not a stronger ground of hope of infants salvation so dying then mine His 23d Arg. ch 28. his 25th ch 30. are answered HE tels us That he hath a stronger probabilty then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of the faithfull so dying and a certainty of the salvation of some in that God admitted them visible members of his Church For Christ is the Saviour of his body and he present his Church clensed and unspotted to the Father And if God will have them to be visible members of his Church then he would have us take or judge them to be members of it And withal there is less danger of mistake in them then in men at years because they do not dissemble nor hide any hypocritical intents under the vizor of profession as they may do And it is certain also that if God would have some and many to be of the true body of Christ and so be saved then hee would not have all to bee visibly out of that body That he would have have them churchmembers is proved and shall be God willing yet more If God add to the Church such as shall be saved then there is a strong probability of their salvation whom he addeth to the Church Answ. Mr. B. here p. 74. in his arguments 2d and 3d. intimated that he asserted a sure ground for faith concerning the salvation of believers infants so dying and that to be a promise in the word of the salvation of those within the visible Church and here he asserts a stronger probability then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of the faithfull so dying and a certainty of the salvation of some in that God admitteth them visible members of his Church Yet pag. 78. he dares not say there 's a full certainty of the salvation of all believers infants so dying Yea pag. 110. he saith Rom. 9.8 the Apostle pleadeth that salvation is not by the Covenant tyed to all Abrahams seed Out of which I infer 1. That Mr. B. hath
no sure ground for faith to wit a promise in the word concerning the salvation of all the infants of believers so dying For the Apostle pleads that salvation is not by Covenant tied to all Abrahams seed and if not to Abrahams then to none else and the certainty of the salvation of some is acknowledged by me as well as by him And sure if the Covenant assure not salvation to all and neither it nor any other revelation of God tell us salvation belongs to this infant of such a believer or to that there is no certainty concerning the salvation of this or that particular infant of a believer dying nor is there a sure ground for faith concerning it nor is the hope of it certain and we are to suspend our judgement concerning it which Mr. B. carpâ— at so much in me to make me and the truth I hold odious which is almost all the work he does for he proves nothing he says in opposition to what I hold and though his speeches are inconsistent yet when he sets down his opinion he agrees with me that he dares not say there 's a full certainty of the salvation of all believers infants nor dare he I think say that he is certain of any one believer on earth his infant dying that he is saved 2. That he hath a stronger probability then I mention of the salvation of all the infants of believers so dying in that God admitteth them visible members of his Church is said by him But 1. he shews not what degree of probability I deny which he asserts 2. I never opposed the strongest probability Mr. B. asserts onely I declared my self unsatisfied concerning the certainty which Mr. B. dares not assert 3. That God hath admiâ—ted them visible members of his Church Christian is not yet proved by Mr. B. nor ever will be 4. If he had yet this proves the certainty of the salvation of none now existent for the speeches Ephes. 5.23 27. must be understood of the Church which is so visible that it be also the invisible Now though it be certain that some visible Churchmembers are saved yet it is neither certain that all or any visible Churchmembers or Churches now existent shall be saved and therefore no more then a probability of the salvation of all or some infants of believers now existent can be inferred though their visible Churchmembership were granted As for the strength of the probability I stick not to grant it as strong as he would have it so that he assert not a certainty And therefore did not Mr. B. mind to pick a quarrel with me and to affright people from my doctrine this Chapter of Mr. B. might have been spared Yet Mr. B. adds And the promises to them are fuller then Mr. T. expresseth and give us stronger ground of hope 1. God hath as I have proved assured that he will be mercifull to them in the general and that in opposition to the seed of the wicked on whom he will visit their Fathers sins Now this giveth a strong ground of hope that he will save them For if the Judge or King say I will hang such a traytor but I will be mercifull to such a one it is an intimation that he meaneth not to hang him If your friend promise to be good to you and mercifull you dare confidently hope he means not to destroy you Answ. This proves not Gods promises any fuller then I express for those I alledge not excluding but including in an c. this are as full as this Exod. 20.6 Nor doth this give a stronger ground of hope then I do who yeeld as much as Mr. B. infers though I like not Mr. Bs. instance which intimates that God should say I will damn the children of the wicked to the 3d. and 4th generation v. 5. and save the children of them that love me to a thousand generations He adds 2. God saith as I have shewed that the seed of the righteous is blessed Now is not that a strong ground of hope that so dying they shall not be damned It is not likely that God would call them blessed whom he will damn eternally after a few days or hours life in a state of infancy which is capable of litle sense of blessedness here Answ. What mercy is meant Exod. 20.6 and what blessedness Psal 37.26 hath been considered before and thence it may appear that a certainty of salvation to all infants of believers or to any definitely now existent cannot bee inferred Yet I oppose not the inferring thence a strong ground of hope Nevertheless that God should call them blessed in a sort and yet damn them is no inconsistency nor doth it appear much less likely then that hee should reprobate Esau afore hee was born or had done good or evil Rom. 9.11 12 13. 3. God saith Mr. B. entreth Covenant to be their God and to take them for a peculiar people to himself Deut. 29.11 12 13. And this giveth strong hope of their salvation For as if the â—ing promise to bee your King and to take you for his sâ—bject it is likely hee intends all the benefits of Kingly government to you or if a man promise a woman to bee her husband it is likely that hee intendeth to do the office of a husband And so when God promiseth to be their God Answ. Though I yeild that there is ground for a strong hope oâ— the salvation of infants of Christian believers so dying yet in the text cited there is nothing to that purpose For 1. that Covenant was made onâ—ly with the people of Israel and was a peculiar Covenant with that nation 2. For the Covenant was of Gods being God to them while they owned him and kept his Commandments and so wâ—s conditional So that thiâ— Covenant is not a Covenant with every believer and his issue nor did Gods promise to bee their God assure the salvation of all the Israelites infants so dying much less the salvation of infants of Christian believers to whom all the promises in the new Covenant are personal none that I remember national or domestical as were to the Jews 4. Saith hee And Paul 1 Thes. 4.13 would not have the faithfull mourn for the dead as those that are without hope now what dead are these And what hope is it 1. Hee saith the dead in general which will not stand with the exclusion of the whole species of infants 2. Hee speaks of those dead for whom they were apt to mourn And will not parents mourn for their children And for hope it is evidently the hope of resurrection to life For resurrection to damnation is not a thing to be hoped for This seems plain to me Answ. â—hough I oppose not a strong hope of the salvation of believers infants so dying yet to shew how vainly he talks of his shewing more for it then I do the reader may take notice that if the Apostle be interpreted of the hope of