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
of Abraham had not the privilege by the covenant and then if it were granted that our children by that covenant had the privilege of Abrahams child yet it could not be proved thence that every child of ours hath the privilege of the Covenant sith every child of Abraham had it not Nor doth Mr. Bls. proviso at all help him For 1. it being granted that we in Gospel-times are under the same covenant as was Isaac and that we are taken in though without the limitations first of the covenant onely as it contains promises of saving grace secondly onely of true believers before God I deny it yet it follows not that our children are taken in 2. Nor if it were true that our children are taken in doth it follow that all our children are taken in by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 sith neither all Abrahams children nor all Isaacs children were taken in by it Esau being expressly excluded Rom. 9 10 11 12 13. and elsewhere nor doth God stile himself the God of Esau as he did of Jacob. But Mr. Blake saith my instance from Gen. 17.19 Heb. 11.9 is very weak to prove that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham Ishmael himself was in Covenant though not established in covenant as God there and verse 21. promised concerning Isaac nor his seed never received appears not alone by the sign and seal which he received vers 23. which yet is sufficient for God to seal to a blank is very strange to sign a covenant to a man never in Covenant but also from Gal. 4.30 what saith the Scripture cast out the bond-woman and her son for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman A man cast out of Covenant was before casting out in Covenant ejection supposes admission unless we will give way to Mr Tombs his dream of ejection by non-admission He was cast out after the time of the solemnity of his admission by circumcision as may be seen Gen. 22. Answ. The Apostle Rom. 9. answering the objection that if the Jews were rejected from being the children of God then the promise falls or takes not effect which God made to Abraham and his seed to be a God to them answers verse 7 8 9 in these express words 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 children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed For this â—is the word of promise at this time will I come and Sarah shall have a Son Which words if they do not affirm that the promise or covenant Gen. 17.7 was not made to all Abrahams seed and particularly that it was not made to Ishmael I cannot perceive any pertinency in the Apostles speech to the answering the objection made nor know how to understand his words nor do I remember that I ever met with an interpreter which did not thence conceive that the Apostle in those words did assert that the promise or covenant was not made to Ishmael Some I have produced Exam. part 3. S. 4. so conceiving and many more might be alleged if it were necessary But the words of God to Abraham Gen. 17.19 20 21. do sufficiently prove that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was not made to Ishmael and therefore he was not in Covenant by Gods act of promise For when Abraham upon Gods promise concerning Sarah and her son ver 15 16. had laughed verse 17. and petitioned for Ishmael verse 18. God answers verse 19. by repeating his promise concerning Isaac and saith he would establish his Covenant with him for an everlasting Covenant and with his seed after him verse 20. Then tells him he heard him concerning Ishmael and recites what he would do for him which expresseth how far he had heard his petition And then follows verse 21. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac which bâ—ing adversative hath this plain sense that he would do that for Ishmael which he had expressed verse 20. But he would establish his Covenant that is confirm and perform what he had promised before verse 7 8. in Isaac not in Ishmael he promised not to be a God to Abraham and his seed by Ishmael in their generations nor to give them the Land of Canaan As for what Master Blake saith that Ishmael himself was in Covenant though not established in Covenant it seems to intimate that he conceives that God made the Covenant to him but did not establish it But sure God makes no Covenant with any which he doth not establish if he did he should not be true Nor is there any such emphasis in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will establish which doth intimate that the Covenant was made to Ishmael but established that is confirmed and to be certainly performed onely to Isaac for the phrase used elsewhere Gen. 9.9 11. doth express no more than is meant v. 12. this is the token of the Covenant I make between me and you As for Master Blakes proof that Ishmael was in Covenant because he was circumcised Gen. 17.23 it rests upon these unproved false suppositions 1. That circumcision was appointed to men because they were in covenant with God 2. That God did by circumcision sign the covenant to him that was circumcised· 3. That every one that was appointed by God to be circumcised was in covenant As for the speech that God doth not seal to a blank it is a speech the Scripture useth not and it having various senses may be true in some sense in other false A blank is such a paper as hath no writing in it or wherein there is some empty space left to write more in whether persons names or promises or other matter By Gods sealing Mr. Bl. means the using of Circumcision baptism the Passeover the Lords Supper according to Gods appointment That which he conceives to be sealed thereby is the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which he makes all one with the Covenant of grace and by proving every Sacrament to be a Seal of the Covenant of grace from Rom. 4.11 his meaning should be that God seals in the administrators right use of every Sacrament to every person that he is in Covenant that he hath the righteousness of faith else God should seal to a blank But in that sense I do aver it to be most true that God doth seal to a blank that is that many thousands had circumcision the Passeover baptism and the Lords supper according to Gods institution and appointment who were never in Covenant with God nor did God seal that is assure to them their interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times or the righteousness of faith But in this sense I grant it to be true that God doth not seal to a blank that is when he appoints any sign or seal
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
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
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
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
Evangelical grace which is the onely Covenant the people of God are now under and which alone is the question now Who are in this Covenant or to whom is this Covenant or the promiseâ— of it made by God I assert as before Sect. 33. That it is made onely to the Elect And M. Bl. pag. 191. yeelds that many Orthodox writers seemingly restrain the Covenant oneâ—y to the Elect and regenerate But he addes some distinctions whereby he thinks what they say may be salveâ— from self contradictions 1. Of a two fold Covenant 1 a single 2 a double to perform both parts to save upon repentance and to give a new heart But he doth not shew that there is any Evangelical Covenant now which is not double nor that either the double or single is made with any but the elect 2. Of an inward Covenant which â—e grants to be made onely to the elect and an outward which he saith is a Covenant properly so called and which Scripture holds out for the Covenant of God with his people in which all professed Christians so called are which puts them into a capacity of Sacraments and their children of the initial Sacrament But what this outward Covenant is or where it is to be found I know not what I find about it â—s shewed to be vain Sect. 25. and Mr. Bs. refutation of it in his Apology against Mr. Bl. pag. 66 67 10â— saves me any further labour to shew it to be a figment 3. Of being in Covenant according to title to the Covenant or to the benefits of the Covenant and saith the right of Covenant belongs to all that externally makâ— profession the benefit onely to the elect But I know no right of Covenant but what is by Gods promise and surely all to whom God promiseth have the benefit of the Covenant and to imagine that the Covenant of grace is to any to whom the grace following the Covenant is not is to make Gods Covenant and word to fall which the Apostle abhorred Rom. 9.6 and to make the Covenant of grace as liable to complaint â—s the first Covenant contrary to Heb. 8 6 7 8 9 10 4. Of entring into Covenant which all visible professors do and stedfastness in it which do onely the elect and faithfull Psal. 78 3â— But this text speaks not of the Covenant of Evangelical grace as if any were entred into it who were not stedfast in it but of the Covenant of the Law with the Jewish people which is not the Covenant in which the Gentiles are under the Gospel And to Mr. Bls. confused talk I again say 1. That the Covenant of Evangelical grace is made by God onely to the Elect and that in respect of Gods promise none but they are in the Covenant nor is there to any right to Sacraments or capacity of an initial Seal barely by that being in Covenant 2. That profession of Faith may cause a man to be taken to be in the Covenant by the guides and brethren of the visible Church in the face of which he may have title to Sacraments but his infant children have no title thereby to Baptism 3. That from the beginning none but the elect had the Covenant of grace made to them 4. That from the beginning it is not proved the children with their parents to have been no not in the imaginary outward Covenant But letâ—s vâ—ew what Mr. Bl. saith 1. He alledgeth Matth. 28.19 and takes it as freely conâ—est that a Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God and tels us that the Covenant Matth. 28.19 is committed to man to work and to judge of it being wrought to put a seal for ratification and confirmation of it which cannot be restrained to the elect for they onely are known to God an elect person and a Church member should be termini convertibiles the seal of the Spirit and the seal of the Sacrament are in equal latitude to baptize an unregenerate person is to put a seal to a blank as high an abuse of that sacred Ordinance as the circumcision of the Sichemites Gen. 34 24. Answ. It is not confest by me that a Disciâ—le of Christ that is every Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God meaning it in respect of Gods Covenant or promise of Evangelical grace made to him nor do I know of any Covenant Matth. 28.19 committed to man to work and to judge of it being wrought and to put a seal for ratification and confirmation though I grant every Disciple professing Christ is in some sense in Covenant with God that is by his act of profession doth engage himself to follow Christ and so in that respect is in Covenant with God and that Matth. 28.19 the Apostles are injoyned to make Disciples by preaching the Gospel and baptize them which may be done without working a Covenant between God and man which phrase doth imply that a Minister can work God into Covenant which is in my apprehension an absurd conceit or judging of a Covenant being wrought or putting to a seal for confirmation of it And for the absurdities Mr. Bl. infers from the denial of restraining the Covenant to the elect I count the first not to follow upon my tenet sith I conceive a man may be a Church-member who is not in the Covenant of grace and for the second I count it no absurdity according to my explicatâ—on before given Sect. 34 35. though I do withal declare that the seal of the Sacrament is a term I reject for the reasons given before Sect. 31. And for the third I count it no abuse to put a seal to a blank that is to baptize a person who is not in the Covenant of Evangelical grace As for the 2d argument Mr. Bl. would draw from Matth. 28.19 to prove that the Covenant of God is onely a Covenant professed because Matth. 28 19. a whole Nation is in Gods ordinary way of administration in a capacity to attain and enter into it it is answered in the 2d Part of this Review sect 9. where it is shewed that Matth. â—8 19 there is no such command as to make Disciples and bapâ—ize the whole of a Nation even the infants Mr. Bl. adds a 2d text Matth 20.16 22.14 whence he argues thus If there be a call from God in the times of the N. T. in a far greater latitude then the grace of election that of many called few onely are elected then the Covenant in the N.T. times is not to be restrained to the elect and regenerate but contains all that professedly accept the terms of the Covenant and visibly appear a people of God This is evident seeing the call is into Covenant all at the feast were called ones all the hired Labourers were Covenant-servants To conceive men to be called of God and not to be in Covenant with God is a full contradiction The call hath its terminus a quo and its terminus ad quem a state which upon
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
be laid aside when an argument is drawn from them as here from the word Sacraâ—ent He adds Besides is there not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mystery in the original Answ. It is but never in the use in which the term Sacrament is used as now it is defined 2. I alleged that there is no common nature of Sacraments not as Mr. Cr. of a Sacrament express'd in Scripture This he saves is untrue in the sequel For what consequence There is no common nature of a Sacrament expressed in Scripture therefore Baptism is not a Sacrament more then in this There is no common nature of infused grace expressed in Scripture therefore faith is not an infused grace Answ. It was not my sequel but this therefore the term Sacrament may be laid aside and no good argument is from the definition of a Sacrament to prove Baptism to be a relation The term grace or grace of God I do much question whether any where in Scripture it be applied to inherent quaâ—ities in us or good acts proceeding from us and I conceive that the use of it in that manner hath occasioned or strengthened the errour of justification by inherent righteousness because we are said to be justified by grace and do wish that when approvers of Preachers are directed to examine persons of the grace of God in them the thing had been otherwise expressed and that such an expression as the gift by grace or the like were used yet I deny not there is in Scripture a common nature of those gifts by grace in us which accompany salvation and that faith is a gift by grace infused inspired or wrought by the spirit of God Mr. Cr. saith further untrue in it self for though not in one place there may be in many places of Scripture compared together a common nature of Sacraments compared together And is there not the common nature of a Sacrament expressed in one Scripture Rom. 4.11 a seal of the righteousness of faith This is the judgement of the Ancients and the most of the Divines of the reformed Churches Answ. That neither the text Rom. 4.11 nor the Ancients do so define a Sacrament is shewed before and however the Divines of the Reformed Churches do define thence a Sacrament as the seal of the Covenant yet not as there it is expressed a seal of the righteousness of faith But of this I have said enough before sect 31. What I said of Austins definition of a Sacrament that it is a visible signe of invisible grace as imperfect which I proved by instances was without a miscellany of absurdities â—f the descent of the Holy Ghost as a Dove were a signe or seal of Christs office of Mediatorship and not of his righteousness of faith yet it was a visible signe of his holy qualifications Luk. 4.18 Joh. 3.44 and so of invisible grace and consequently a Sacrament by Austins definition Christs washing his Disciples feet shewed his love and humility ergo by Austins definition must be also a Sacrament and holding up the hands in prayer shews faith in God kissing the Bible in swearing shews appealing to God as Judge or hope in his word which are invisible graces according to Austin and according to his definition Sacraments And though it be added in the Common Prayer book Catechism ordained by Christ yet it is not so in Austins definition used by Mr. Cr. in the dispute and if it had holding up the hands in prayer had been a Sacrament being apâ—ointed 1 Tim. 2.8 And for the addition in the Catechism as a means to receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof I know no Scripture that ever made Ciâ—cumcision the Passeover the Lords Supper or Baptism meanes to receive invisible grace and how faâ— and in what manner it assures I have before sect 31. and elsewhere shewed Enough of Mr. Crs. vain praâ—â—le in this section Sect. 3. Mr. Cr. quarrels with my reconciliation of my own words denying all invisible Churchmembers were to be baptized but affirming it of viâ—ible He tels me 1. This distinction is not fitly applied for the proposition was meant of visible Churchmembeâ—ship But 1. however it were meaâ—t the expression was God appointed infants Churchmembers under the Gospel and this might be understood of invisible as well as visible Churchmembership and therefore it was fitly applied to take away the ambiguity of the expression 2. It was fitly applied also to â—lâ—er my meaniâ—g and to free my words from contradiction 2. He tels me my proposition is not true for all visible Churchmembers are not to be baptized then all baâ—tized before they being visible members were to be baptized again But what is this but wrangling sith the proposition was his own and I granted it with that limitation in his own sense of them that were not yet baptized He tels me of the state of the question between us which is impertinent to the present business of cleering my words He adds Invisible and visible members differs as Genus and species all invisible members are visible but not all visible members invisible the invisible being extracted out of the visible now if all invisible members be also visible it will inevitably follow they may be baptized whether visible by profession or by prerogative and promise of parents or sureties of infants But what a dotage is this Doth visible Churchmember praedicari de pluribus specie differentibus in quid If it be asked what is an invisible Churchmember will any that is in his wits say hee is a visible Churchmember Is not this a contradiction to say all invisible members are visible How is it proved that any are visible members of the Christian Church but by profession of faith The like dotage is in what he saith after that there is an intrinsecal connexion of thâ—se termes actually to receive into Covenant under the Gospel and to appoint Church-members under the Gospel that they are as essentially coincident as to bee a man and a reasonable creature which makes this proposition to be aeterâ—ae veritatis those whom God did actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel For is the one to be defined by the other Do not these terms express existences restrained to hic and nunc for sure actual receiving and appointing are singular acts in tiâ—e not essences If these speeches of Mr. Cr. be according to Metaphysical and â—ogical principles I am yet to seek in them as having not heard or read of such principles before And if God did promise before the Law foreâ—ell under the Law actually receive into Covenant under the Gospel or appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel without faith or profession of â—aith then infidels are actually in Covenant under the Gospel and so justified then is Mr. Baxters dispute against Antinomians about the condition of the Covenant and justification false and if they be Churchmembers without faith or profession of faith and to
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-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
part of Baptism it self yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized pag. 710. arg 4. we must baptize none that profess not their consent to enter themselves presently into the Covenant of grace with God in Christ p. 79. arg 5. we must not baptize any without the profession of that faith and repentance which are made the condition of remission of sins the rest have speeches to like purpose in which though he puts in sometimes and their seed yet his proofs do all overthrow that his own addition and tear off his patch which he hath printed to his argumenâ— and as fully militate against his book of baptism as Mr. Blakes tenet so that to me it seems that by Divine providence without his intention una eademque manus vulnus opemque tulit Nor do I think but that if conscientious Christians chiefly Schollers would read over that second disputation they would be satisfied that infants ought not to be baptized but themselves and that Mr. Baxter hath cheated the world by his book of baptism and shewed himself therein an inconsiderate writer But however this fall out it is a great rejoycing to my soul that God hath so long preserved my life and strength though now declining to finish this part of the Review also and to see that part of it printed which is in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument in his book of baptism about his pretended ordinance of infants visible Church-membership and its repeal which some have given out as unanswerable because this answer hath been so long in publishing not considering that besides the not knowing of his minde about it till 1655. I have been necessitated to answer many others and together with my constant labours some other employments extraordinary with domestick distractions necessity of respect to my bodily strength want of help of books in some points of learned men to whom I might have recourse of an amanuensis and chiefly the difficulty of getting it printed by reason of the great charge which this book amounts to and yet is not so readily put off as other smaller writings and such as sute more with the minde of Readers of whom few seem to search after truth impartially especially in controversies of this kinde In this which is done my witness is in heaven how faithfully and sincerely I have dealt which makes me slight the unrighteous censures of those Mr. Blake mentions of Mr. Baxter Mr. Firmin Mr. Gattaker Mr. Ford Mr. Crag and the rest And for Mr. John Goodwin who so much magnifies Mr. Baxters book I wish he and Mr. Horn his second would read this writing which I take to be a sufficient answer with the two fore-parts of this Review to what is said by Mr. Baxter and themselves in the point of Infant-baptism As for the point of Schism or Separation which Mr. Baxter and he charge Anabaptists with I take my self no further concerned then mine own fact which if they can prove to have been unbrotherly or unrighteous I hope God wil so frame my heart as to testifie my repentance if not I advise them to take heed of rash judging and all their followers of following them in that sin If the objection be still set on foot That those that are as they term us Anabaptists do fall into many false opinions prove Quakeâ—s c. I wish them better to examine reports of us then Mr. Farmer Mr. Breton and others have done of me afore they spread them and to look into the state of the societies of their own judgement who if they be not guilty of such fallings I shall rejoyce with them and hope they will learn to pitty and endeavour to restore those who are fallen in the spirit of meekness if they be that they will remember that it should be no more objected to us then to themselves For my own part I hope I shall not abet any such errour nor do I know of any such errours or miscarriages in the Churches to which I have associated which are not opposed and censured by us Nor do I think it equal we should be charged with that errour or miscarriage which we condemn And I make bold to admonish Paedobaptists in the Lord that they take heed of those practises which tend to the disquieting defaming hindering their brethren in the work of Christ because of the supposed errour as they term it of Anabaptism lest they happily fight against God and wrong their brethren remembring that he that doth wrong shall receive for the wrong he hath done and there is no respect of persons with God Col. 3.25 And to the end they may search their own consciences and rightly judge of themselves I presume they may do well to lay to heart thâ—se following quâ—stions 1. Whether it be not a manifest perverting of the Gospel of Christ to maintain that the Covenant of Gospel grace is made to each beleever and his seed 2. Whether it be not against the Gospel to maintain that the command of Circumcision Gen. 17. doth any way bind Christian beleevers now in their practise 3. Whether it be nor against the Gospel to entitle pâ—rsons to the Church visible Christian by their natural generation of beleevers 4. Whether it be not a manifest will-worship to practise the positive Rite of Infant-Baptism as Gods worship which is confest to have neither precept nor example in the New Testament 5. Whether it be not a profanation of Baptism to use it otherwise then Christ appointed 6. Whether by justifying Infant Baptism the relinquishâ—ng of many Popish and Prelatical ceremonies which have as much of reason tradition authority of the Church as it be not condemned 7. Whether it be not an oppression and exercising of dominion over mens consciences to tie them to acknowledge Sacraments to be in their nature seals of the Covenant of grace which the Scripture terms not so nor can be proved plainly from it and to impose on them the practise of Infant baptism under pain of guilt of sin which Christ never appoâ—ntâ—d 8. Whether it be not manifest hypocrisie to oppose the Cross Surplice c. and to be zealous for Infant baptism 9. Whether they who justifie Infant baptism and oppose baptism of Believers at age confessed to be according to the institution of Christ and primitive practise are not partial in Gods Law and may expect to be made contemptible before all the people 10. Whether they who do so do not break the solemn Covenant of endeavouring reformation according to Gods word 11. How they that say they baptize infants into the Name of Christ who sprinkle or powr onely some water on them without any profession of the infant can be acquitted from saying falsly 12. By what rule those who are acknowledged visible Church-members in infancy câ—n be denied the Lords Supper 13. Whether it be not a signe that Paedobaptism is not according to rule when there are so many
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
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
in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism for repentance is put as a prerequisite 2. The Apostle doth not speak of the promise as Master Church means that he judged that they and their children were rightly judged as visible professors in the promise of propriety in God for they were not then such But that the promise of raising up Christ was fulfilled for them upon their repentance and baptism or their calling and this is made not the reason of right to receive or warrant to the Minister to baptize them but as a motive to their duty of repenting and being baptized and encouragement to hope for remission notwithstanding their crucifying Christ and imprecation on themselvs and theirs Matth. 27.25 SECT VII Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize PAg. 19. Mr. Church brings in an objection thus The judgement of charity that any are in promise is not a sufficient reason for administring baptism to them there must be shews of grace for more certainty To which he thus answers shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing only as they are ground for the judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise for else if the Devil should take a humane shape and make a verbal profession though he were known to be a Devil he must be baptized I reply Mr. Church here starts a question by what judgment a Minister is to proceed in admitting a person to baptism Concerning which I suppose it will not be denied 1. That a Minister being but as an officer under Christ in baptizing is to baptize according to his Lords will For that is the property of a servant 2. That the will of the Lord is most manifest in the institution or appointment of Christ which is without question declared by the words of Christ Matth. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. explained by the Apostles and other approved Ministers thereof command and practice mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles 3. That true believers and disciples of Christ are appointed to be baptized and that they have true right before God 4. That such believers and disciples as are appointed to be baptized are Disciples of all nations not of Angelical but humane nature and therefore we have no warrant to baptize either good Angels or Devils taking humane shape and making shews of repentance or faith if known to be Divils or Angels All the difference is with what judgment and upon what evidence a Minister is to baptize I conceive 1. upon extraordinary revelation from God a Minister is to baptize an Infant declared to be a Disciple as I say in my Examen p. 4. S. 3. 2. According to ordinary rule he ought to baptize none but Disciples by profession which profession ought to be free sober serious and intelligent For discerning of which he is to use ministerial prudence though he be not able to search the heart and after the use of ministeral prudence therein he is prudently to judge of the truth of his faith and discipleship Wherein he ought to judge according to the rule of charity 1 Cor. 3.17 which believeth all things hopeth all things and yet heed what Solomon saith Prov. 14.15 The simple believeth every word but the prudent man looketh well to his going And our Lord Christ Luke 12.43 having said as it was conceived of a Minister Who then is that faithfull and wise steward whom his Lord shall make ruler over his houshold to give them their portion of meat in due season it is requisite that the judgment of a Minister upon which he baptizeth should have both ingredients prudents charity charity alone is not sufficient For 1. If Charity be used without prudence there may be a mockery of the Ordinance and it profaned 2. If the rule be a judgment of charity alone then supposing the Minister be defective in his charity the person is to be debarred who is otherwise fit to be baptized But about this I conceive there is little or no difference between me and the paedobaptists Mr. M. in one place to wit in his defence pag. 78. intimates that I am conceived to incline to the looser way of baptizing any that would make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ. And in another place pag. 233. he maks it all my pleading that because we cannot know that all Infants of believers have the inward grace we may not therefore baptize them From the former I vindicated my self in my Apology Sect. 17. and from the latter Sect. 10. But the difference is what qualification it is that may be evidence to a Minister whereby to judge prudently a person to be capable of baptism They that hold all Infants are to be baptized that are offered they make no scruple nor do they make much scruple that hold all Infants that are in a chosen nation which I have refuted Exam. part 3. Sect. 13. others baptize onely the children of inchurched members of which I shall speake in Examining Mr. Cobbets conclusions There are that from the Generality of promises and election running through the Loyns of believers will have all the children of believers to be in Covenant and elect in the parcels though not in the lump and Mâ— Church his opinion comes near it that we have ground from a judgment of charity that the parties to be baptized are in the promise to baptize them But against this I argue 1. That is to be the rule of judging a persons baptizability which is made the condition of a person to be baptized in the holy Scripture But no where in it is this made the condition of being baptized that he be elect and in the Covenant 2. The Scripture doth no where say that the election of God runs for the most part through the Loyns of believers And though there are promise of blessing to the righteous and their seed yet these are indefinite both for the kinde of blessing and the person and these promises are made onely to the truly righteous and not to them who are only such in appearance Wherfore there can be no certainty for a judgment of prudence to rest upon to determin of any whether they are elect or not in the Covenant of grace or not spiritually considering that God hath declared Rom. 9.6 7 8 18 24. That he ties not himself to believers children Now all judgment is to be suspended of that which is not revealed The secret things belong to the Lord our God Deut. 29.29 3. For Infants of believers there is no ground for a judgment of charity because they do nothing to shew whether they are in the Covenant or no. And if it be revealed by God that they are all or some in Covenant then we know it by a judgment of faith believing Gods revelation and so it is not a probable judgment of charity but a certain judgment of verity
which directs in this 4. If a probable judgment of charity that a person is elect and in covenant be the rule to direct in baptizing then suppose a salvage in new England or elsewhere seeming to be affected in the the time of preaching should be judged in charity to an elect person in covenant he ought to be baptized by the Minister so judging afore he owns Christ by profession It is promised that the Israelits shall be graffed in again and all Israel saved Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. and we may charitably judg it will be shortly shall we baptize any of them or their Infants upon this charitable judgment of their election and being in Covenant afore profession 5. If a charitable judgement of election and being in covenant had been the rule to baptize then sure John the Baptist and the baptizers appointed had somewhere propounded that question or made inquiry into that thing but it was not so they required repentance Acts 2.38 inquired into the faith of the baptized 6. if this had been the direction baptize those that are elect or in Covenant had been a blind derection unfit for men to follow and so our Lord should have imperfectly instructed his Apostls and others or rather have mocked them putting them to do a business not feasiable by them But this is not to be said of Christ especially the rule being so plain to baptize believers and Disciples by profession As for Mr. Chuch his conceit that shews of grace and actual profession are a reason for baptizing onely as they are a ground for the judgment of charity that the paties to be baptized are in the promise I deny it For the rule is not baptize persons in the Covenant but Disciples or believers of all nations To that of the Devils making a verbal profession I have answered before That which he saith that the judgment of charity meaning that they were in Covenant was the rule by which John Baptist and the Apostles walked in baptizing is not true for they baptized upon their profession which they certainly knew And though they had no infallable knowledge of the individuals election or being in Covenant but baptized hypocrits not a few yet they had an infallible knowledge of individuals confessing sins brofessing repentancc and faith for they heard them and this was their rule not the conjectural knowledg of a persons interest in the Covenant or election of grace SECT VIII Acts 2.38 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance MR. Church brings in a Second objection which is in effect what I allege Exam. pag. 62. a right to Evangelical promises is not the adequat reason of baptism for the Jews were in the promise Acts 2.38 39. yet not baptized without preceeding repentance To which he answers thus A visible right to the promise either by shews of grace as in those of riper years or by the meaning a species in the promise without restriction of which the parties to be baptized are individuals as the Infants of visible professors are is a sufficient reason for baptism To which I reply If visible right ro the promise by shews of grace be a sufficient reason for baptism then the rule I set down for admitting to baptism is yeilded to be aright But for the new made rule of Mr. Church it is but an humane ivention without Scripture warrans He supposeth the Infants of visible professors to be in the promise without restruction and the promise I conceive he means is I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 But it is most false that that promise is made to any meer visible professors but to Abraham not to any true believers natural seed much less to any meer visible professors natural seed but onely to Aâ—rahams seed who are onely elect and true believers of the Gentils according to the spiritual part of it as is proved before Yet were it granted that not onely the Species but also the individuals were named expressly in the Covenant I should deny they were to be baptized according to ordinary rule till they were known Disciples and believers The Jewish people are in covenant Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. and yet not to be baptized till they believe and Peter Acts 2.38 39. requires repentance for baptism of whom he sayth the promise is to you But he tels me The learned and rational of the Anabaptists confess that if it could appear to them that an Infant is in the Covenant they would not doubt of the baptism of it I answer whatever others do yet I disclaim that confession I have granted sundry times as Examen part Sect 15. part 3. Sect. 3. that regenerate justified adopted persons born into the world who have the inward grace are not to be debarred baptism if it be known by special revelation for they are then known Disciples and believers But I never said this of an Infant in Covenant For an Infant may be in Covenant even then when he is unregenerate being in covenant nothing no more then having the promise made to him which may be afore he is born and therefore I should not yeld that of being in covenant which I would do of actual regeneration But Mr. Church makes some shew of answering the argument from Acts 2.38 39. He tels us those Jews rejecting and crucifying Christ and Atheistically mocking â—at Gospel truths ceased to have a visible right to the promise untill they regained it by repentance Answer Mr. Church pag. 18. saith being in the promise is the reason rendred by the appostle for the receiving of baptism Acts 2.38 39. therefore they that are rightly judged in it may be baptized pag. 20. Being in the promise is the onely reason mentioned by the Apostle for baptism Doth not thus plainly assert that the Jews then were righly judged by Peter to be in the promise and their right thereby to batism How then is it true which here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise till they raigned repentance But it is not once onely that this Author is off and on saying and unsaying at a little distance Here he requires a visible right in the promise regained by repentance a little before he saith the species being named without restriction in the promise as a sufficient reason of baptism However I take his confession that notwithstanding what he said pag. 5.6 7. from Acts 2.38.39 of the promise to them and their children and thence inferring their Infants tittle to baptism as being the children of visible professors to whom God had promised to be a God and to their seed yet here he saith they ceased to have a visible right to the promise until they regained it by repentance which the Apostle supposeth they then had not even then when he said The promise is to you and your children For he exhorteth to it as a thing to be done But Mr. Church flutters like
well as in the former if he mean it of the same temporal promises we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the â—ame not the promise of the land of Canaan of greatness prosperity c. but rather a prediction of persecution if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus Christians have Christ and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham which is spiritual but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism and end of Circumcision He saith Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius as is plain from Luke 3.1 2. now mark his reason For Christs Circumcision was the period of it Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament For my part I find no such thing in Scripture If our Lords words Iohn 7.22 23. do not prove it was then in force yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14 15 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances and slaying the enmity by his Cross and Col. 2.14 of blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us and took it away nailing it to his Cross do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death and so some years after baptism began to be a Sacrament initial The usual Doctrine is that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles Diodati annot on Matth. 27.51 And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated But Mr. Church tells us Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize for the Law is said to continue but untill John Luke 16.16 To which I answer I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15 and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded Matth. 8.4 I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover seventh day Sabbath and other things As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise because it is said the law was untill Iohn by the same reason he might say all the rest of the Law yea and the Prophets were needless when Iohn began to baptize But the meaning is the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued till Iohn or as it is Matth. 11.13 all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn that is declared Christs comming as future and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached and therefore Mark 1.1 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching for then the Messiah was named as present Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World John 1.29 Lastly saith Mr. Church the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12 arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification for which circumcision served aforetime To which I answer neither doth the Apostle plainly that is in express terms teach Col. 2.11 12. what ever Mr. Church or Mr. Calvin say That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime nor do his reasons prove it For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime 1 Cor. 5.7 8. But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism which Master Church mentions right yet they prove not his Conclusion That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people For if not all these yet as many other parities may be reckoned at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses between baptism and the Passeover as that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise and accounted of the Church the ordinary way of communion in the Church not allowed to those without engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations signs of mortification external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels to cease at Christs comming c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come not the other the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham which was of promises peculiar to the Jews not the other the one a domestick action to be done in the house the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church the one to be done by the parents in that respect not so the other the one with cutting off a part not the other the one with drawing blood not the other the one to males onely the other to females also the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were the other not limitted to any precise day the one made a visible impression on the body and that permanent not so the other the one to be done with an artificial and sharp the other with a natural and not wounding instrument the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants but not to others though Godly except they joined themselves to that family the other to believers or disciples of all nations the one engaging to keep Moses his Law not so the other But be the disparities or parities what they will the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command so that were the Sacraments as they are called the same in kind use analogy or what other way they may be deemed the same yet without a rule of command or example
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-Gospel-covenant Rom. 1.16 17. Gal. 3.8 9 c. the gospel-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-Gospel-Covenant I dare freely say it is Jewish Anti-evangelical directly opposite to the gospel-Gospel-covenant For the gospel-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
or But thou as by the Tigâ—â— it is 〈◊〉 by Parcus tu autem Piscator tu verò 2. Let it be read therefore and the inference be from the Covenant yet that the inference is from the promise in the seventh verse onely and not from the eighth verse which is next or the rest of the promises v. 4 5 6 cannot be shewed 3. Let these things be granted yet that it imports this rule to be taken from the Covenant those who are in Covenant are to be circumcised not others hath no colour of proof nor any shew of truth in it sith it is clear in the case of Ishmael to whom that promise diâ— not belong nor any in that covenant yet he was to be circumcised and others were not to be circumcised to whom the promises were made 4. He urgeth thus And he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant so that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in covenant To which I reply Two waies a man may be said to break Gods covenant one by breaking the command which was in reference to the Covenant or enjoyned in testimony of it and if this be his sense then Mr. Ms. speech is trifling when he saith he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant sit being all one to break the command and the covenant The other sense is he hath broken my covenant that is as Piscat sch on Gen. 17.14 as much as is in him by depriving himself of the grace of God promised in the Covenant For otherwise the incredulity of man doth not make void the faith of God Rom. 3.3 But take it either way it proves not that which was to be proved that the rule about circumcising persons was their interest in the Covenant All that follows on this is that the observance of circumcision was strictly enjoined under this penalty that otherwise they should be cut off from Gods people and so deprived of the benefit of the Covenant signified but this doth not prove that every one circumcised was in the Covenant and should have the benefit of the Covenant So that though it be granted which Mr. M. saies That to lay Circumcision upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together Yet his Major is not proved That it was Gods Will that such as are in Covenant from Abrahams time and so forward should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant supposing them only capable of the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself Nor is Mr. M. more happy in answering my exceptions Whereas you allege saith he concerning Melchisedec Lot Job we find no such thing that they either received this seal of Circumcision or were tyed to it I reply it s very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive and had he been alive he was of an higher Order and above that Paedagogy Answ. I grant it cannot be demonstratively proved that he was alive yet it being probable he was who not many years before met Abraham though he were in Covenant yet being not appointed to be circumcised it overthrows the proposition by which Mr. Ms. Enthymeme was to be proved That all that are foederati must be signati Yea Mr. Ms. answer here That he was above that Paedagogy doth plainly intimate that circumcision was peculiar to that Paedagogy and so the rule about circumcision not obligatory to Christian Gentiles to whom that Paedagogy is abolished and who have a Priest of an higher Order to wit that of Melchisedec As for Lot he denies not that he then lived but saith That no Scripture saith he was not circumcised which he saith of Job also whose time is uncertain by reason of thâ— Scripture-silence though probably he was of Esaus posterity But in matters of fact à non Scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia Nevertheless for Lot it seems to me very unlikely he should be circumcised living then in Sodom not in Abrahams house and no mention made of him when Abraham circumcised his own house and Lots posterity being after uncircumcised Jerem. 9.26 And for Job what time soever he lived it is likely he was an Edomite who are reckoned for uncircumcised Ier. 9.26 and there are no passages that give any intimation of his acquaintance with Israel But if these serve not the turn the example of Cornelius undeniably uncircumcised and not blamed for want of it though undoubtedly in the Covenant of grace being one that feared God with all his house and his prayers and alms heard therefore he was not to be circumcised though in the Covenant of grace nor all that enter into Covenant ought to be sealed with the initial seal though capable and no bar put in against them by God I instanced in male infants of Jews under eight daies old who were not to be circumcised though in Covenant Mr. M. answers To that of infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself whether for any typical reason or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergo so sharp a pain as was to be endured in Circumcision before the seventh and Critical day was past or whether for any other cause I dispute not it is sufficient God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old Answ. This is a grant of the objection and overthrows the proposition of Mr. M. in his Sermon All that are in Covenant are to be sealed And the forbidding being onely by not appointing it the proposition can be tâ—ue onely in this sense All those in Covenant are to be circumcised to whom it is appointed and no other But infants are in Covenant and to them it is appointed to be sealed with the initial seal in the New Testament Ergo. Wherein I should grant the Major and deny the Minor and infer that without appointment interest in the Covenant did not make capable no not of Circumcision though it 's likely infants might have born it in the end of the seventh day as well as on the eighth I alleged that no females in Abrahams family though in Covenant were to be circumcised To this Mr. M. answers For the women they were not Subjectum capax circumcisionis there was in them a natural impediment against it therefore could it not be enjoined them and suppose some men amongst them or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praepâ—tium as some sort of Eunuchs this Ordinance had not reached them whether the wisdom of God purposely chose a sign that women might not be capable of receiving it for some typical use as some conjecture it is sufficient they were not capable of it and were exempted from it by God himself Answ. If it be true which
more than for women now to eat the Lords Supper unless it be founded upon circumcision yet in practice we know they did eat it and if they eat it not as circumcised persons tell me by what right they did it Answ. I have proved Examen part 3. S. 12. pag. 112. Postscript to my Apology S. 11. that 1 Cor. 11.28 10.17 and 12.13 Acts 20.7 are express precept and example for womens receiving the Lords Supper And for eating the Paseover there is an expresse precept That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it Exod 12.47 in which women were meant and they were to eat according to the number of the Souls v. 4. and no leaven was to be in their habitation v. 20. therfore either women must eat the Passeover or else they must not eat bread so that we need not go to circumcision for womens eating the Passeover Yea if we use no other way than that of Mr. M. it will not be proved that women ought to eat it For Exodus 12.48 no mention is made of any circumcised who are to eat it but males and though it be said no uncircumcised might eat yet it is not said all circumcised must eat much less they that are only in some sense counted circumcised But Mr. M. seeks to make his advantage of this point thus If you say they were included in the Houshold Exod. 12.3 4. every houshold was to eat the Paschal Lamb and there was no exception of women I reply first grant but the same consequence that when we read so frequently in the New T. that whole housholds were baptized and no exception of children that therefore all the children in those housholds were baptized and this Controversy is quickly ended Answ. If it were granted that we had no other way to prove women were to eat the Paschal Lamb which yet we need not as I have shewed but from Exod. 12.3 4. in that every houshold was to eat the Lamb and there was no exception of Women yet the consequence were not good whole housholds were baptized therefore infants because not expresly excepted For as Exod. 12.3 4 infants are excepted from being required to eat the Lamb though not in express words yet because the thing to be done was not such as could agree to infants of a few daies old suppose eight or nine So where Act. 16.15 33. and 18.8 1 Cor. 1.16 the houshold is said to be baptized besides this that no infants are expressed in the same chapter or elsewhere the speech is plainly interpreted to be meant of those that heard the word and believed as Acts the eleventh chapter and fourteenth verse and ch 16. v. 32 34. and 18.8 1 Cor. 16.15 as if the holy Ghost had of purpose prevented this misconstruction and frivolous consequence of Paedobaptists But saith Mr. M. I add further it is not said the whole houshold shall eat it for all uncircumcised persons were forbidden to eat it and none but circumcised persons had warrant to eat it Answ. It is said Exod. 12.4 they shall eat the Lamb according to the number of Souls i. e. hominum Pisc. Schol. in locum every man according to his eating which is a plain precept for women to eat who could eat Yea further saith Mr. M. suppose some words in the institution should reach the Jewish women yet how doth it reach the women Gentiles who should prove Proselytes to them For Exodus chapter 12. verse 48 49. there is order taken for the male stranger let all his males be circumcised and then let him come near and keep it but there is not any word that takes order for the strangers females Answer It is said verse fourty seven That all the Congregation of Israel shall keep it and the Proselytes of Righteousnesse women as well as men were of that Congregation and verse fourty nine it is said One Law shall be to him that is homeborn and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you if then the Law appointed the Israelitish women to eat the same law appointed the Proselyte Women to eat So that notwithstanding Mr. Ms. vain hope my exception against the consequence of his Argument They are foederati Therefore they are to be signati stand good and it is not yet proved that bare interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of grace did intitle to Circumcision much less to baptism which were enough to overthrow his first argument But sith it is my task I will now go on to the rest of his Dispute taking in by the way Master Blakes third section of the 42. chapter of his Vindic foederis SECT XIX Mr. Blakes exceptions against my Speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled MR. Blake asserts a reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal and first he meddles with my Examen and then with my Anti-paedobaptism To my objection that the Proposition is not true that all that were federate in Abrahams family were to be signed for neither Males afore the eighth day nor females were to be circumcised besides his avouching Master Marshallâ— answer as sufficient which is reviewed before he saith Is there no connexion between them because he that receives into Covenant and appoints the seal hath prescribed a time when it shall be applyed To which I say it proves that there is not a connexion between being federate and to be signed to make this Proposition true All that are federate are to be signed barely in that they are federate For they are federate the first second third fourth fifth sixth seventh day as well as the eighth yet not to be signed whereas if there was such a connexion between them according to Gods will that the one being put the other is to be put they would be to be signed as soon as ever they are federate And if it be Gods will that they should be signed but not till the appointed time after I might say that though infants were federate yet they were not to be signed with baptism till Gods appointed time which is not till they be disciples and so infant baptism is not proved from their being in Covenant the Major Proposition All that are in Covenant are to be signed being true only with this limitation in the appointed time which is not for baptism till they be Disciples And whereas in answer to my objection that if infants have right to the seal by being in covenant then they have right to the Lords Supper he answers 1. That in baptism there is no more of necessity than to be passive This is false for baptism is enjoined as a duty and such as is to have repentance and faith antecedent Mark chap. 16.16 Acts the 2. chap. 38. Acts chap. 8. verse 37. 2. He grants that infants have true title to the Lords Supper jus ad rem not jus in re a right to it yet by reason of infancy have their actual
the Holy Ghost promised and it is true in this sense to have a promise is to possesse it But in proper acception the term promise notes the act of the person promising as Gal. 3.16 to Abraham and his seed were the promises made or spoken So likewise v. 17 18. And in this sense he hath a promise who hath not possession of the thing promised and thus we usually say I have not yet such an office revenue estate c. but I have a promise of it In which sense I took it and so it is true that in this sense a man may have the promise and not be a believer or disciple as yet And thus I conceive it taken in all the three places in the new Testament 2 Cor. 7.1 1 Tim. 4.8 Heb. 7.6 and in this sense a person may have a promise afore he is a believer Mr. Blake further excepts against me That 1. I make these terms all one to have a promise and to be a child of the promise 2. That I make a child of the promise Rom. 9.8 to be all one with to be an elect person as Isaac and Jacob v. 10 11 12. were children of the promise to whom the promise was made before they were born But Mr. Blake saith That to have a promise and to be a child of promise are two different things in Scripture yet shews not the difference between them In that expression Rom. 9.8 the child of the promise according to the usuall Hebraisms Child of light Child of wrath Son of perdition which note the person who is the subject or object of those several terms attributed is a person of whom or for whom the promise is made and so it is all one with to have the promise But saith M. Bl. if the child of the promise were all one with to be elect then according to me all the Jews according to the flesh were elect persons they had the promises yea those that were actors in Christs death Acts 2.39 which he must needs yield to be an absurdity To which I reply I do not conceive how this is true according to me that if children of the promise be all elect all the Jews according to the flesh were elect persons Sure I no where make all the Jews according to the flesh children of the promise Yea the text Rom. 9.8 is so express against it that the children of the flesh are denied to be children of Gods that is children of the promise which the words shew to be equipollent Yea it is the express determination v. 6. that all that are of Israel to wit by natural generation are not Israel to whom the promise was made nor all children that is of God and of the promise who are the seed of Abraham v. 7. But that no other were children of the promise though the seed natural of Abraham and Isaac but elect persons the Apostle doth not onely assert but prove it in Esau and Jacob v. 10 11 12 13. It is true Rom. 9.4 it is said the promises were the Israelites but whatever the promises there meant were whether of spiritual or corporal good things yet it follows not that of every Israelite were the promises any more than that of every Israelite v. 5. was Christ according to the flesh Nor Acts 2.39 is it said that all the Jews according to the flesh had the promises But that the promise was to them their children and all afar off whom God should call the promise is attributed to none but the called of God The generality of Anti-Arminian Protestants make children of the promise to be all one with the elect Rom. 9.8 some I allege in my Exam. part 3. sect 4. some more in my Praecursor and more I meet with in my reading It is not true which Mr. Bl. saith that Isaac being born by promise all his posterity originally were of the same birth for the Apostle concludes the contrary of Esau Rom. 9.10 11 12. The text Gal. 4.28 is rightly brought to shew that all Jews according to the flesh are not the children of the promise but as Mr. Dioson we that is believing Christians who were born after the spirit and presented by them that were born after the flesh v. 29. that is by the unbelieving Jew who stuck to the legal covenant Nor need we say that all the visible Churches of Galatia were born after the spirit but onely that the true believers in them were so Nor is there a word of any privileges inferiour to justification as the series of the text shews and many learned Protestants cleerly express That which Master Blake saith he will maintain that every one in Covenant is a believer a disciple that believers are same formally such as in act assent to Gospel revelations some virtually such as have the privileges of professing believers that infants in Covenant are virtually believers in that they are honoured with the privileges of believers and that this distinction the Scripture warrants are all vain dictates there being not one Scripture that ever calls any a believer from a privilege but from the act of assent or profession of faith nor is there the least colour for it out of Scripture to call infants in covenant believers without their own act of assent or profession of faith and therefore I let pass these speeches of M. Bl. as idle unproved talk of which his book is full Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech some not yet born some not yet called are in the covenant have the promise of grace made to them I have read saith he of a covenant entered with those that at the instant time of the making of the Covenant were present and with those that were not present Deut. 29.15 with men of years and them with their little ones Deut. 29.11 But I read not of a covenant actually made with any unborn Answ. My expression are in Covenant I confess that I remember not used in the Scripture yet it is usual in the writings of Paedobaptists who usually say infants are in the Covenant of grace with their parents The Assemblies larger Catechism avoucheth infants of parents professing faith in Christ within the Covenant Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 8.15 c. And this expression of theirs I knew not how to conceive they meant otherwise then thus Infants have Gods promise of grace made to them or for them as in the Directory the promise is made to believers and their seed For infants said to be in the covenant must be so by some act either their own or the administrators or Gods Not by any act of their own for they do nothing to that effect not by the administrator of baptisms act for he doth nothing but baptize and if his act be bringing into Covenant then bringing into covenant is all one with baptizing and if an infidels child be baptized it is in Covenant Besides Paedobaptists assert they are within the Covenant afore they are baptized as the
Directory saith they are foederally holy before baptism It remains then that it is by Gods promise Now surely Gods promise to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 which is usually made the promise whereby infants of believers are in covenant was many thousand years since 430. years before the law Gal. 3.16.17 Therefore even according to the usual language of Paedobaptists infants of believers are in Covenant afore they are born which Mr. Bl. had no cause to carp at as he doth but that it is almost all his art especially when I had to prevent it so distinctly added to shew my meaning have the promise of grace made to them If Mr. Bl. have any other way whereby infants are in the covenant as the parents vow or profession or suretie for them according to it I suppose infants may be said to be in covenant afore they are born sith such vows profession and promises may be made for them afore they are born Let 's consider what M. B saith He tels us he reads not of a covenant actually made with any unborn And as I conceive by his Appendix to his Vindic. foederis as an addition to his first chapter his reason is because he conceives that it is of the general nature of a covenant properly so called that there be a mutual contract and agreement which I shall examine when I consider Mr. Cobbers part 1. c. 3. sect 9. of his Iust Vindic. For present if this be true neither can a Covenant be actually made with an infant born sith an infant born can no more contract or agree or consent then one unborn Nevertheless I conceive there is a covenant actually made with persons unborn Gen. 9.12 where God saith This is the token of the Covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you for perpetual generations which doth express a covenant actually made with every living creature of all flesh for perpetual generations therefore for thousands of persons unborn Yea where he saith he readeth of a Covenant entered into with those that were not present Deut. 29.15 he reads of a covenant made with persons unborn as Piscator Ainsworth Iackson Grotius the New Annot. The notes out of the Arch-bishop of Yorks Library c. do conceive and reason proves it sith that covenant was made only with Israel not with any other people then existent but there was none of all Israel then born which was not there that day as appears from v. 10. therfore those that were not there with them that day can be no other then persons unborn and so Mr. Blake saith not true that he hath not read of a covenant actually made with any unborn But were it granted that by them that were not present were meant persons existent then there is no reason why a covenant may not as well be said to be actually made with the unborn as with the absent who do not express any actual consent or agreement Surely if it be true that the Covenant of grace was made with Christ afore the world for all the elect or in the beginning of time Gen. 3.15 or at his death or resurrection as many Divines speak and sundry texts seem to intimate Gal. 3.16 1 Cor. 11.25 Tit. 1.2 2 Tim. 1.9 Joh. 6.38 39 40. Iohn 10.15 17 18 29 30. Iob. 17.9 10 20 24. Isa. 53.11 12. Psal. 2.7 8. Heb. 1.5 6. Heb. 10.7 15 16. Heb. 8.6 Heb. 13.20 it must of necessity be made with many persons unborn But Mr. Blake adds Mr. Tombs seems here to make the Covenant and election to be one and the same as by this passage so by that which follows but these Scripture still distinguishes To which I say it is true that I make the elect and those that are in the Covenant of grace one and the same but neither in that passage or any other do I make the covenant and election to be one and the same as Mr. Blake mistakes me He saith further We find promises and prophecies as to the taking into Covenant in time to come Ezek. 20.37 but not any such respective to election To which I say the prophecy of taking into Covenant Ierem. 31.33 34. is respective to election or else God promises to write his Laws in their hearts and not to remember their sins who are not elect He goes on All the promises of call of the Gentiles is to bring them into the privileges of glory formerly proper to the Jews To be in covenant was their great privilege And this is not conferred on the Gentiles before all time but done in time Isaiah 42.6 when he brings them light then he brings them into Covenant To which I say The Jews privileges were some of them as those Rom. 9.4 5. such as God never promised to the Gentiles to bring them to he never promised to make any entire nation little ones servants c. to be his visible Church But God promised to the Gentiles the saving privileges of justification adoption regeneration eternal life Ephes. 3.5 6. and this was onely to true believers or elect persons verse 11 12. And these were in Covenant in respect of Gods act of promise before they were in being in which sense alone infants may be said to be in the covenant of grace but in respect of the conferring of the things promised and the possession of them by faith so neither they then were in Covenant Ephes. 2.12 nor are infants now He adds That text Rom. 11.26 27 is too notoriously abused a prophecy of their future call into covenant is made a proof that they are already in covenant upon that account we may make the resurrection if not past as the antient Hereticks Hymenâ—us and Phileâ—us affirmed 2 Tim. 2.18 yet at least present There is like promise of the resurrection of the dead as there is of the call of the Jews into Covenant and resembled to the resurrection as Ezek. 37. so also Rom. 11.15 If by vertue of the text alleged they be already in covenant by virtue of like Texts the dead are already raised Answ. Had Mr. Bl. either heeded my words or been willing to give them any fair interpretation he had forborn this censure in which he doth too notoriously abuse me I said the Jews Rom. 11.26 27. not yet born or not yet called are in the Covenant have the promise of grace made to them which later words I put in on purpose to shew in what sense I said they were in covenant to wit in that they had the promise of grace made to them in which sense I took the Paedobaptists to mean that infants are in the covenant of grace nor do I yet know how they can mean otherwise and this is proved plainly from Rom. 11.26 27. That God hath promised to save all Israel to turn away ungodliness from Iacob and saith this is his covenant unto them when he shall take away their sins I say not they are in
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
all one which to assert were ridiculous And who will believe that I attribute as much to the Covenant respective to this seal when I say Examen page the seventieth eight That the common privilege of Circumcision belonging to the Jews did not arise from the Covenant of grace according to the substance of it but according to the administration that then was as Master Marshall to the Command when he said The Command was the formal reason of the Jews being circumcised When I do not at all make circumcision to arise from the Covenant as any reason of the duty much less the formal reason of it but as from the occasion of it whereas Master M. makes the command the very formal reason of the existence of the duty SECT XXI The ten Exceptions of the first part of my Review against Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38 39. for the connexion between Covenant and seal are vindicated from Master Blakes answer Vindic. Foederis ch 37 43. MR. Blake addes some snatches against my ten exceptions to Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38 39. To the first which was that the promise is not proved to be that Genesis 17.7 and Acts 3.25 Acts 2.30 lead us to some other he saith when a promise is mentioned and a seal any man but he will presently understand that promise which is ratified by such a Seal To which I reply Where is there mention of a seal or of a promise sealed or to be sealed as he speaks If there were is there no other promise to be ratified by such a Seal but that Did circumcision seal no other promise but that Doth the Scripture give the least hint of sealing that promise Gen. 17.7 understood as Paedobaptists expound it that God would be a God to every believer and to his seed in respect at least of visible Church-membership yea though he be a believer onely by profession They use to tell us that Circumcision seals the righteousness of faith from Rom. 4.11 But to seal this and to seal the promise Gen. 17.7 as Paedobaptists do rack rather than expound the words are as much different as are the payment of Gold and lead Have not learned men expounded the promise some of that mentioned ver 38. of the gift of the holy Ghost some of other promises why then doth Master Blake so ineptly intimate me to be singular in my conceit why doth he so falsely insinuate that no more than bare words can be found for my exposition when I bring two texts to confirm it and Mr. Bl. saith not a word to infirm my alleging them what he refers me to in his 37. ch and Mr. Cobbet shall be examined in its place To the second which was that the promise is Acts 2.39 is expounded 1. of a promise of a thing to come whereas it may seem rather from Acts 13.32 33. to be meant of a promise already fulfilled 2. That the thing to come promised was some outward privilege to be conferred on them and their children Mr. Blake saith yet he quotes no man for this exposition of a thing to come but on the contrary quotes Mr. Cobbet in the margin against it It is meant of a present right for as yet they were not broken off from the olive nor Gentiles graffed in Answ. 1. That Paedobaptists do understand the words Acts 2.39 of a promise of some thing to come appears 1. in that many of them make it the same with this I will be a God to a believer and his seed So Master Marshall Defence page 126. Mr. Drew ubi supra Mr. Blake out of Calvin Vindic. foederis page 270. and others Now a promise that he will be a God to them is a promise of a thing to come 2. In that they disclaim the supplement is fulfilled as Mr. Cobbet Just. Vindic. part 1. ch 2. sect 3. and usually as Beza the English Directory Mr. Blake and others expound it the promise is made which proves it is according to them meant of something to come not of a thing past for if it were it should be a promise fulfilled Mr. Cobbet it is true saith the promise in praesenti is to you in respect of external right but then he must needs mean it that the promise was in praesenti made of external right to come or else he must mean it of a promise fulfilled which he denies And for the other that Paedobaptists do expound it of outward privilege to be conferred on them and their children besides Mr. Cobbets words cited and other in the same section Mr. Hudson Vindic. page 223. saith This promise Acts 2.39 is that external covenant to which baptism doth belong and the Ashford Disputants for Infants-baptism grant That the promise of the eternal inheritance life and salvation is not made much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith but upon our own personal belief and obedience but the promise of outward privileges and of right to participation of Ordinances as to be baptized and inchurcht this belongs to children upon their parents faith and in this last sense it is that Peter saies the promise is to you and your children c. i. e. you and yours have the privilege of right to baptism To my third exception that to you is taken as if it were meant of those persons to whom he spake as then believers and under that formal consideration Mr. Blake saith I do not interprete it of any present explicit faith in Christ as the Messiah but now this conviction that so evidently appeared did evidence them to be in an hopeful way and with that Scribe not to be far from the Kingdom of God and therefore he takes his opportunity and presseth it on to come into the way of believers in Christ Jesus Answ. This grant is sufficient first to justify my exception secondly to overthrow Mr. Blakes and other Paedobaptists inference from this text 1. That in this text the Covenant in New Testament times is held out in this latitude to believers and their seed Vindic. foed chap. 37. For if they had not any present explicit faith in Christ as the Messiah then they were not believers 2. That this speech the promise is to you and to your children is equipollent to this promise I will be a God to believers and their seed for if they were not then believers it had been false if the Apostle had said as they would have him the promise that God will be a God to believers and their seed is in praesenti to you and your children when they were not believers To my fourth Exception that your children is expounded of their infant-children yea it is carried as if of them onely he saith to this is sufficient spoken ch 37. I shall therefore look back to that chapter page 270. he saith Acts 2.39 an effectual call cannot be meanâ— which the Apostle calls a call according to purpose proper onely to the elect so the visible
it for granted from Saint Paul that there is none at all that there is neither Greek nor Jew circumcision nor uncircumcision Barbarian nor Scythian bond nor free To which I reply there is no need I should shew any such priviledge held out in the Gospel to the Jewes seed above the Gentiles but that Master Blake should shew such priviledge as he speaks of to the Jewes seed held out in the Gospel But this I say if he will have the text Acts. 2.39 to be for his purpose he must shew that the children of the Gentiles of whom there is not a word are mentioned as those to whom the promise is as well as the children of the Jewes which he thus attempts And when the Apostle addes to those that are afar off even as many as the Lord shall call he plainly means the Gentiles as appears comparing Ephes. 2. And though I take not the boldness to adde to the words and to their children as Master T. challenges Doctor H. yet it is clear that the same is understood there in reference to the children of the Gentiles that is exprest before to the children of the Jewes If any shall grant an inheritance to Titius and his heirs for ever and to Caius every one will understand that the heirs of Caius are meant as well as the heirs of Titius especially if it can be proved out of the grant it self that the priviledge conveyed to Caius is as ample as that to Titius We can prove the priviledges granted to the Gentiles in the Gospel to be equal to those granted to the Jewes when the Jewes children are under the promise with their Parents the children of believing Gentiles cannot be excluded To which I reply that it appeared not plainly to Beza Annot. in locum that by those afar off Acts 2.39 are meant the Gentiles but rather the posterity of the Jewes which should be in after Generations or those in the dispersion among the Gentiles For it seemes unlikely that Peter did then consider or declare the calling of the Gentiles who was so averse from preaching to Cornelius Asts 10. or that it would have been born with them when even the brethren expostulated with him for that fact Acts. 11.3 nor do I think 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts. 2.39 the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephes. 2.13 this latter noting manifestly remoteness from God in respect of knowledge and communion the former remoteness from them to whom he spake either in descent or distance of place However were it resolved that the Gentiles are meant Acts. 2.39 as many Interpreters conceive yet it is too much boldness to adde to the text and to their children and not much less in Master Bl. that it is understood when there is neither word in the text nor defect of sense without it nor any ancient copy which necessitate that addition or supplement And for Master Blakes case in law it is not opposite For Acts 2.39 there is no mention of a grant to them and their heirs for ever but only a promise to them and their children which there is no necessity nor I think intention in Peter in those words to extend to any other then were then existent But if it were opposite yet so far as I know their mindes either by such experience in law-cases oâ— converse with Lawyers with whom I sometimes lived I presume they would say otherwise then Master Blake that a grant of an inheritance to Titius and his heirs for ever and to Caius without mentioning his heirs is not a grant to the heirs of Caius no not though it could be proved the priviledge conveyed to Caius is as ample as that to Titius As for what Master Blake tells us he and others can prove of the priviledges of the Gentiles granted in the Gospel equal to the Jewes I yield it if meant of believing Jewes and Gentiles and saving spititual blessings in Christ according to that Ephes. 3.6 But meant as Master Blake would have it of visible Church-membership and the initial seal I take it to be a vain brag neither he nor any other having yet proved it or that the Jewes or Gentiles children are or were universally under the pronise of the Covenant of Grace which is Evangelical with their believing Parents and by reason of their faith I know no more about Acts 2.38 39. in that ch to be answered I return to his answer to my exceptions ch 43. pag. 393. he thus dictates after his fashion Children as theirs whether they be called or no is he knowes with us a contradiction children are called in their Parents call and we say they are in covenant the promise is made to them they are visible Church-members till they reject the covenant and deny their membership To which I say I know many things to be taken for truths and contradictions with Paedobaptists which were neither truths nor contradictions but this conceit that Jewes children uncalled as calling is meant Acts 2.39 is a contradiction I had not so mean an opinion of Master Blakes and other Paedobaptists intellectuals as to imagine they would own it till Master Blake vented this foppery which how vain it is was shewed above In like manner I was secure of ever meeting with such a foolery as this of Master Blake children are called in their Parents call till I read the like in his brother Baxters vain-mocktitled-book plain Script proof c. ch 3. that he that converteth the Parent maketh both him and his infants disciples to which I have said somewhat in my Review part 2. sect 12. And for the other speech that they are in covenant the promise is made to them they are visible Church-members till they reject the Covenant and deny their membership it contains sundry inconsistencies with Paedobaptists hypotheses For first they say the children of believers are in covenant and visible Church-members as theirs children as theirs whether they be called or no is he knowes with us a contradiction saith Master Blake here If so then they are in â—ovenant and visible Church-members while theirs Quatenus ipsum includes de omni semper But they are so when they reject the covenant the relation to their parents ceaseth not then therefore neither their Church-membership if the hypothesis be true Secondly they suppose the visible Church-membership of believers children is by vertue of Gods promise to be their God Gen. 17.7 and this promise requires no other condition but the parents faith no condition from the 〈◊〉 for then it could not agree to infants therefore if the parent be a believer 〈◊〉 the Child be not a visible Church-member God keeps not his promise which he hath made according to their hypotheses and so they do make God a lyar which is blasphemy Thirdly they magnifie the priviledge of infants visible Churchmembership they enveigh against anti-Paedobaptists as robbing them thereof and parents of their comforts though they grant the Parents as much ground
of hope for them as the Paedobaptists grounds can truly give them and for reality of priviledge setting aside an empty title and rite as to them in infancy they grant them visible Church-membership when they profess the faith which in respect of Church-communion Paedobaptists themselves grant them not before but mock both Parents and children telling them they are in covenant and visible Church-members by their parents faith without their own yet denying them Church-communion which is due to every visible Church-member without their own personal avouching the faith besides their injurious dealing with them in their mock-baptism of them when it is not due nor does them any good and denying baptism to them yea persecuting them for seeking it after when it is due and might do them much good by engaging them to Christ and thereupon assure Christ to be theirs My fifth exception Master Blake passeth over as fore-spoken to ch 37. which hath answer before and my sixth as falling in with my tenth where I shall overtake him To my seventh wherein I excepted against Master Stephens for holding the command Be baptized every one of you in a covenant-sense as he calls it to be as if he had said Be baptized you and your children which I said to be a new devised non-sense such as we have no Dictionary yet to interpret words by To this saith Master Blake I am sure here is a non-sense device to talk of Dictionaries does Calepin or Scapula Rider or Thomasius help us to compare covenant and seal promises and Sacraments I reply that speech is non-sense in which the words used to signifie that which the speaker would signifie by them do not in the use of them so signifie But this speech Be baptized every one of you doth not in the use of the words signifie be baptized you and your children therefore that speech so used in that which Master Stephens calls Covenant-sense is non-sense This appears by Dictionaries in none of which every one of you is as much as you and your children Therefore that speech in that sense is a new devised non-sense As for Master Blakes words either they are non-sense or as bad For first to talk of Dictionaries is not a device an action of the mind but a speech an action of the tongue or hand and therefore it is non-sense to call it so Secondly to talk of Dictionaries is not non-sense for then all speech of Dictionaries should be non-sense and so all the verses before Râ—ders and others Dictionaries should be non-sense But to speak of Dictonaries otherwise then the words signifie so as the meaning cannot be perceived by them which he cannot say of my speech of Dictionaries As for Master Blakes question it is frivolous as much of the rest of his writing here is For though Dictionaries do not help us to compare covenant and seal promises and Sacraments yet they do help us to know the sense of words and discover to us the non-sense of words used otherwise then their signification is Master Blake himself in the 43. ch sect 2. refers me to the Dictionary about the word Pax. To my eighth exception that there is not a word of any scruple in the text as some have imagined if we be baptized our selves and not our children they will be in worse case then in the former dispensation in which they had the seal of the covenant nor is it likely that they were sollicitous about such an imaginary poor priviledge of their children He saith I am of his minde that there was no such scruple in their heads Master T. his unhappy conceit of casting the seed out of the Covenant was not then in being though I think the reason he gives is little to purpose yet I say this scruple raised by Anti-paedobaptists and heightened by Master T. as in many other so in this text is removed Ans. My exception then stands good against those who make that scruple the occasion of Peters mentioning their children And for my reason Master Blake had done better to give a reason of his censure then barely to say he thinks it to little purpose It is his calumny that I have any conceit of casting the seed out of the covenant and his conceit that the scruple mentioned is in this text removed hath been shewed to be but his dream My ninth exception was that Paedobaptists make for v. 39. to infer a right to baptism whereas it infers onely a duty which is proved in that v. 38. baptized is in the Imperative Mood To this saith Master Blake Master T. does grossely abuse his judgment in this way of refutation as though the right in which they stood could be no Topick from which in a moral way the Apostle might perswade them to baptism when Shecaniah perswaded Ezra to the reformation of the marriage of strange wives in these words Arise for the matter belongeth to thee Ezra 10.4 here was a motive in the moral way to call upon him to do it and an argument inferred that it lay upon Ezra as a duty by command from God to set upon it And to my reason he saith he hath quite forgotten that the words holding out their right are in the Indicative Mood For the promise is to you and your children And here is a notable correction of the Apostle he should have said if this had been his meaning you must be baptized and he saiâ—s Arise and be baptized Ans. Sure I am Master Blake doth most grossely abuse me in insinuating as if by my refutation the right in which they stood could be no Topick from which in a moral way the Apostle might perswade them to baptism when I proved that the Apostle did not from v. 39. infer a right to baptism which in a legal way they might claim but a duty to which in a moral way he perswades And therefore he shootes wide from the mark when he goes about to prove that a right may be a motive in a moral way to a duty And yet as if he could write nothing to the point his own allegation Ezra 10.4 is not to his own purpose the motive as himself alledgeth it being not a right to a privilege but a command from God The like roving talk is in his answer to my reason For whereas I alleged that verse 38. a right is not inferred from verse 39. but a duty because be baptized v. 38. is not in the Indicative but the Imperative Mood tels me the term is v. 39. is in the Indicative Mood which is nothing to my objection but like as in the contention between two deaf men in Sir Thomas Mores epigram he that was charged with theft answered his mother was at home The like random talk is in his insinuation of my notable correction of the Apostle who corrected not the Apostle but shewed the Paedobaptists conceit incongruous to the Apostles words He himself seems I think out of heedlesness to correct the Apostle when
there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it were it not that some of your Exceptions do almost recall your grant If it be in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose Answer It is true I granted this Conclusion understanding it according to the Explication in his Sermon pag. 9 10. in these words That the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall and that blessed promise concerning the seed of the woman often renewed and the Patriarchs faith therein and salvation thereby plentifully recorded in Scripture But the first time that ever it was revealed under the express name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the Father of the Faithfull and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies and families the one called the Kingdom City Houshold of God to which all who own the way of life were to joyn themselves and thâ—se were called the children of God the sons of Abraham the children of the Kingdom all the rest of the world the Kingdom of the Devil the seed of the Serpent strangers from the covenant of grace without God in the world c. The substance of this covenant of grace on Gods part was to be Abraham's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life Gen. 17.1 c. Gal. 3.15 Rom. 4.3 John 8.56 On Abraham's part the substance of the covenant was to believe the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Gal. 3.16 Gen. 17.1 18.19 Gal. 3.17 19. In which passage I did conceive that Mr. M. meant by the substance of the covenant of grace the promise as it is purely evangelical which I conceived to be the same with the new covenant mentioned Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. 10.16 17. And this I was sure was not made with all Abrahams natural posterity much less with any believing Gentiles natural posterity as such but onely so many of either as are elect and believe as Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.29 is determined and so none of a believing Gentiles children are in this covenant but they that are believers or elected to faith in Christ. But then this would not serve Mr. Ms. turn And therefore notwithstanding those words in his Sermon yet in his Defence pag. 90. he saith The covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church-privileges but in what sense he means it contains them he declares not That which is contained in a covenant is either the promise or the condition The seal writing writer pen and such like adjuncts are never called the covenant nor contained in it though they be instrumental to hold forth the covenant Now where any promise is of outward ordinances and Church-privileges or how they should be a condition of the promises I understand not He distinguisheth pag 106. of the covenant of grace thus The covenant of grace is sometimes taken strictly sometimes largely as it is considered strictly it is a covenant in which the spiritual benefits of justifi-fication regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly as the covenant of grace is taken largely it comprehends all evangelical administrations which do wholly depend upon the free and gracious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsel of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in types shadows and other legal ordinances this covenant of administration God said Zachary 11.10 he did break with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration we live under where also he rejected the Jews or broke them off from being his people in covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branch and broken off as your self pag. 65. do with Beza rightly express it But herein Mr. M. confounds what in his Sermon he distinguished the covenant of grace and the administration of it He saith The covenant of grace largely taken comprehends all evangelical administrations and saith This administration is fulfilled By the evangelical administrations he means the old legal ordinances afore Christs death and the administration we live under which is baptism and the Lords Supper pag. 120. he saith Our Divines own the outward administration of the covenant under the notion of foedus externum the outward covenant Now if there be sense in these passages I must needs charge my self with dulness who cannot discern it Is it sense to call that a covenant without a Trope which is neither a promise nor a condition of a covenant to say that the covenant contains or comprehends evangelical administrations and yet to call it the administration it self to say this administration was administred and not something by the administration administred But let us considee what others make of this distinction of covenant strictly and largely taken or which is all one the inward and outward covenant I have met with none that speaks more distinctly than Mr. Anthony Burges in his Book entituled Spiritual Refining Sect. 8. Serm. 64. pag. 393. who was one of the Assembly The external covenant is that whereby in an outward visible manner God doth own a people add they externally profess their owning of him but yet in their hearts and souls they do not stedfastly cleave unto God and faithfully keep this covenant in the conditions thereof The internal or inward covenant is that whereby God doth in a spiritual powerfull manner take a people to him working in their hearts all those gifts and graces promised in the covenant as regeneration remission of sins adoption and the like And in this sense onely the truly godly are in the covenant and they are onely Gods people and he their God This distinction of a covenant into outward and inward is not a distinction of a genus into its species so much as a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it In this passage there is want of clearness as well as in M. Marshals He tels us negatively that it is not a distinction of a genus into its species yet with some mincing of the matter so much as if it might be the distinction of a genus into its species though not so much which is an expression of a man who would say somewhat but cannot well tell what to say But if it be not a distinction of a genus into its species what distinction is
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
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
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
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
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
Covenant with believers and their seed they must be all saved c. But in stead of answering me poseth me thus doth God make the covenant of salvation with every visible professor whom they baptizeâ— or with every visible Saint Answ. No Or do they baptize them out of Covenant Answ. Yea If by being out of Covenant be meant that the Covenant of salvation is not made by God to them then how come any to fall off and be damned Answ. None of those God made the Covenant of salvation with fall off and be damned others though baptized rightly and were visible professors yet fall off and are damned because the Covenant of salvation was never made â—y God to them Or what rule have they to baptize by Answ. That which is Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.15 16. Acts 2.38 41. and 8.12 37 38. Why should it be thought more hanious to set a seal on i. e. baptize infants as in the covenant then on these professors which afterwards prove not to be in Covenant Ans. because infants are not Disciples of Christ when visible professors are though they be not in covenant with God by his promise of saving-grace The being or not being in Covenant is not the reason of the baptizing or not baptizing of them but their being or not being Disciples of Christ or do they baptize because that persons are in the covenant Answ. not because they are in the covenant that is Gods covenant to them but because they covenant to be Christs by their own Declaration and promise which is certainly known upon hearing their words and seing their actions nor is it any trick to evade but a clear truth that it is not being in covenant by Gods promise of saving grace to us but being an actual believer gives right to baptism Nor doth it follow if the covenant be the ground i. e. the object of faith it may well be the ground i. e. adequate reason on the baptizer and the baptizeds part of an outward privilege i. e. baptism for the institution is not to baptize men in covenant by Gods act of promise but Disciples or persons in covenant by their professing of faith Nor is there danger of separating the Covenant from the conveyance of actual priviledge for the Covenant of it self till it is fulfilled by the making a person a known Disciple of Christ doth not give right to baptism any more then to the Lords supper Nor is there reason why infants without faith should now be baptized because they were circumcised the institution of the one being different from the other neither do we account Simon Magus c. Abrahams spiritual seed nor deny elect infants to be so if God doth administer all his graces by covenant yet not all outward ordinances by the persons interest in it and if he did then infants by this reason should have the Lords supper as well as baptism The invisible design of God may be known to us and is carried on secretly in an outward visible dispensation and some may be condemned by an outward rule and yet persons not admitted into or ejected out of the Church by their being or not being in Covenant through Gods act of promise to them but by their profession and practise we say not none are to be baptized but real believers the spiritual seed nor that none are the spiritual seed but visible believers nor do we conceive infants no spiritual seed of Abraham because no visible believers But we deny that an infant of a believer is as visible by promise as a believer by profession For on the one side no infant is of the visible Church barely by Gods promise of regeneration justification salvation 1. Because that promise is according to Gods election which is secret so as that no man can know who are they to whom the promise pertaines till it appear by some others declaration then the promise or act an infant can ordinarily perform 2. That which makes a thing or person visibly must be something existent in act for then a thing or person is visibly when it is the object of sense but sense is onely of singular things actually existent But persons may have a ptomise afore they are in being as Isaac was in Covenant afore he was begotten or born yet not a visible Church-member therefore an infant is not visible by promise 3. On the other side profession makes a person manifestly visible and therefore Mr. Sidenhams speech is palpably false that an infant is as visible by promise as a believer by profession SECT XXVIII It is proued from Luke 1.54 55. and 19.9 John 8.39 Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7 16 29. and 4.28 Rom. 9.6 7 8. Mat. 3.9 That the seed of Abraham to whom the promise as Evangelical is made Gen. 17.7 are onely true believers or elect persons TO those texts in the foregoing Section alleaged to prove that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 as it is Evangelical belongs are only true believers or elect persons which have been vindicated from Mr. Sidenhams answers I shall adde some more in the new Testament 1. In Maries song Luke 1 54.55 It is said He hath holpen his Servant Israel in remembrance of his mercy as he spake to our fathers to Abraham and to his seed for ever That seed of Abraham is onely meant in the promise Gen. 17.7 As it was evangelical which he hath holpen by Christ in remembrance of his mercy this is manifest from the text But they are onely true believers or elect persons Pisc. Schol. in Luk. 1.55 Semini 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est posteritati nempe spirituali id est electis sive sint ex judeis sive ex gentibus ut docet Apostolas Rom. 4. v. 16. and ch 9. v. 8. New annot on Luke 1.55 to his seed for ever that is to the faithfull and holy See Gal. 3.16.26 27 29. They only are holpen by Christ in remembrance of his mercy which is confirmed from the words of Zacharias Luke 1.71 72 73 74 75.76 77 78. wherein the holy Covenant and Oath God sware to Abraham was that he would grant them that is Abrahoms seed salvation deliverance to serve god in holyness and righteousness before him all the daies of their life the salvation is expressed to be by remission of sins through the tender mercy of God whereby the day Spring from on high visited them which shewes the Covenant as it was Evangelical promised not outward privileges but saving graces which are not promised to any but elect persons therefore by Abrahams seed in the promise Gen. 17.7 As it was Evangelical are meant onely elect or true believers 2. It is said of Zaccheus Luke 19.9 This day is salvation come to this house for so much as he also is the son of Abraham for the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost In which words the term son of Abraham is
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
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
are only to the elect for to the Heirs of promise Gods counsell is shewed to be immutable for their salvation Heb. 6.17 But so it is onely to the elect Ergo. 9. Those promises by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature are made onely to the elect But such are the promises of saving benefits 2 Pet. 1.4 Ergo. 10. The promise of that Covenant is made onely to the elect of which Christ is surety for Christs suretiâ—hip engageth him to perform it and he performs it onely to the elect therefore he is surety of the covenant onely for the elect But the promise of saving benefits is of that covenant of which Christ is surety Heb. 7.22 Ergo. 11. That covenant which is confirmed by Christs blood is made onely with the elect for it was shed for them onely But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Matth 26 28. Ergo. 12. That covenant which is different from the first covenant in that it is not an occasion of complaint in that it was broken and they continued not in it is made onely to the elect But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.7 8 9. Ergo. 13. The covenant which ingageth God to write his lawes in the hearts of those to whom it is made â—s made onely to the elect for God doth this onely to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.10 10.16 Ergo. 14. The covenant of which Christ is Mediator is made onely to the elect for he is mediator for them onely sith he prayes for them onely John 17.9 And he is Mediator of the new covenant that by means of death they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance Heb. 9.15 But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 12.24 Ergo. 15. That covenant which is an everlasting Covenant is made onely to the elect for the covenant with reprobates is not everlasting But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 13.20 Ergo 16 That in which are given the sure mercies of David is made onely to the elect for no other have them given to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Isa. 55.3 Ergo. 17. That covenant which engageth God to give to them to whom it is made deliverance from all enemies and to serve God in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of their life without fear is made onely to the elect for to them onely God performs it But such is the covenant of grace Luke 1.73 74 75. Ergo That covenant which assures perseverance to them to whom it was made is made onely to the elect for they onely persevere But such is the new covenant of grace Isa. 54 9 10. Jer. 32 40. Ergo. 19. If the covenant of grace be made with other than the elect then it is the absolute or condiâ—ionall covenant as Mr B. distinguisheth but neither Not the first as Mr B. confesseâ—h nor the conditionall for it is made onely with believers and they are onely the elect I grant it is propounded as Dr Twisse speaks Animad in Corinth Defens pag. 235 or as others say offered or tendered to others but made with the elect Ergo. If the covenant of grace be made to any other than to the elect then with all which seems to be Mr. Bs opinion when he saith Plain Scripture Proof c. pag 316 The new Covenant is conditionall and universall But it is not made withall That covenant which was made with all had Adam for the common head but the new covenant was not made with Adam as the common head but with Christ who is given for a covenant of the people Isai. 49.8 and therefore rhe promise was that the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 which Mr B most corruptly interprets Of the whole seed of the woman infants as well as others Plain Scripture proof c. part 1. Chap. 24. pag. 69 but it is true primarily or onely of Christ Heb. 2.14 But Christ is not a common head to all but onely to the elect who are chosen in him Eph. 1.3 4. Ergo I omit the Arguments which Doctor Twisse urgeth in his Animadversions on Corinus pag. 346. Answer to M. Hoard pag. 283.286 Doctor Kendall Vindic. part 3. ch 18 pag. 14 15 and hasten to consider what Mr B. saith further against me And he saith in his Examen and Apology that Mr M. speakes like Corinus and the Arminians in his asserting the conditional sealing and when he talks of the Covenant Christs suretiship c. To which I answer A great many hotspurs of this age do make any thing Arminianism which is but contradictory to Antinomianism I will not say Mr T. is an Antinomian for I think he is not but this opinion that the covenant of grace which baptism sealeth is onely to the elect and is not conditionall is one of the two Master-pillars in the Antinomian Fabrick Answer 1. If any Antinomian or Antipaedobaptist hath been in this age a verier hot-spur than Mr B. let him be disciplin'd at Bedlem For my part I know none that hath in his Writings shewed so much heat call it fury or zeal as you please with so much confidence and peremptoriness and so many mistakes against Antinomians Antipaedobaptists and others as he haâ—h don And surely they want not considerate men that fear lest the esteem he â—aâ—h gotten by his practical Writings and for infant-baptism and the Ministery may occasion the swallowing down of some things he vents about universâ—ll redemption universall covenant of grace uncertainty of perseverance and salvation the condition of justification which withâ—ut more than a grain of salt will turn to Aâ—minianiâ—m and Popery if received by such understandings as are not of good concoction Nor do I know any man who under so great a shew of seâ—king truth and peace in the Church hath more hindred both For thaâ— whâ—ch he saith That this opinion that the covenant of grace is onely to elect and is nâ—t conditionall is one of the pillars of Antinomianism I have made some search into my books and made use of my memory and though I find that in the Synod at New Town in New England August 30 1637 this is made the 81 Error of the Antinomians That where faith is held forth by the Ministery as the condition of the â—ovenant of grace on mans part as also evidencing justification by sanctification and the activity of faith in that Church there is not sufficienâ— bread And in other books they are charged wiâ—h error in holding the covenant of grace absolute so as if by it men were exempted from duty they were justified without faith c. Yet I never to my remembrance heard thâ—s charged with Antinomianism that the covenant of grace is made onely to the elect but find it avouched by many of their best Antagonists and the covenant
of grace is held by able Anti-Arminians unconditionall in thâ—se two senses 1. That God requires no condition from us to be performed by our power but what he requires of us to do he promiseth to works in those to whom he makes promise in that covenant 2 That in the covenant of grace God requires no condition which is of an uncertain event but to those to whom he makes his promises of righteousness forgiveness eternall life he also by covenant assures repentance faith and perseverance and therefore though some proposals of the covenant of grace be conditionall yet no promise as it stands in the entire covenant is conditionall and therefore the covenant and all the promises to be termed absolute and conditionall Mr. B. adds 2. But to these Mr B. hath fully answered Mr. T. and fully cleared Mr M. and himself from the charge of symbolizing with the Arminians and hath fully proved that the entrance into covenant and acceptation of the term of it though not sincerely and unreservedly is common to the elect and reprobate and that the reprobate are within the verge of the covenant as tendered in the Gospel and accepted as beforesaid with a half heart And if any that are run into the other extream shall think that this affirming that Christ hath brought the reprobate also into the covenant of grace conditionall be any part of the Arminian errors as the whole Scripture is against them so Mr. Blake hath said enough to satisfie Answer What Mr Blake asserted and took upon him to prove did neither contradict what I said nor vindicate Mr M. who said in his Sermon pag. 49.1 That God did seal to Infants presently and put their name into the Deed. 2. That in the mean time untill they come to years of discretion Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant Heb. 7.22 and the surety of all the covenanters is pleased to be their surety 3. That God accepts of such a seal on their parts as they are able to give in their infant age expecting a future ratification on their part when they are come to riper years 4. That in the mean time he affords them the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him 5. When they are grown men they may refuse to stand to this covenant and nullifie all These things I count symbolizing with Arminians to say that infants who may and do when they come to age refuse to stand to this covenant are for a while afforded by God the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him even in that covenant of which Jesus Christ is their surety and that for a while Jesus Christ is their surety which contains three points of Arminianism 1. That God affords them the favour of being in covenant with him in that covenant of which Christ is surety who are reprobates 2. That Christ is their sureâ—y 3. That they may be thus in covenant for a time onely To say that any is afforded the favour of being in covenant with God who may be so for a time and that Christ is surety for such covenanters is to hold that God makes this new covenant with other than the elect and that Christ is surety for them is to hold that the new covenant is made with all and that it doth not assure effectuall calling and perseverance but is upon an uncertain condition left to mans will which are condemned as the Arminians errors on the second and fifth Articles by the Deputies of Gelderland Act Synod Dordr Judic Theol. Prov. pag. 131. Of South-Holland pag. 141 142. Of North-Holland pag 154. Of Zealand pag. 159. Of Virecht pag. 162 163 171. Of Friesland pag. 181 c. Profess Belg pag. 30â— Disput. Gâ—ld pag. 324. Transisul pag. 371 and others And whereas Mr. Bl. Vindic Foed pag. 39. chargeth me with misciâ—ing Corvinus I confesse I have not now his book by me having lost it yet such remaining notes as I have by me do give me cause to think there is somewhat to that purpose in or neer the place and however it is carried on Corvinus by the Deputies at the Synod of Dort in his Defence of Arminius against Tilenus and by Dr. Twisse in his Animad pag. 346. and generally charged on the Arminians by other Authors forecited And though I count Mr M. far from Arminianism yet I again say the speeches he used do symbolize with their language Mr. B. adds He that will deny Reprobates to be so far within the covenant of grace must not onely deny Infant-baptism but all Sacraments till he be able infallibly to discern a man to be elect And doubtless this interest in the covenant is â— fruit of Christs death Answer I deny not but Reprobates may be in the covenant of grace in this sense they may have it tendred to them by the preachers of the Gospel they may accept of that tender with half an heart they may think themselves to be in it they may by baptism engage themselves to believe unto the death they may be received into the Church deemed to be really in the covenant of grace But it is not true that God ever made the new covenant to or with them or that Christ as a mediator brought them into the covenant of graceâ— or was surety of them or that God afforded them for a time the favour of being in covenant with him And though I deny not that it is a fruit of Christs death that whosoever believeth on him should live yet that this is not obtained for the reprobate but the elect nor a part by it self but together with this that he should gather into one the Children of God that were scattered abroad John 11 52. And that they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance Heb. 9.15 Nor need I by these assertions of mine deny Baptism or the Lords Supper to any man till I be able to discern him infallibly to be a man elect For I have warrant to baptize him if he shew by his profession that he is a Disciple of Christ and though I knew infallibly he were one of those whom God would save and had promised saving grace to him and in that sense were in the covenant of grace yet for the present not a Dâ—sciple I should justifiably refuse to baptize him And this is a sufficient plea why we baptize not infants of believers because they are not then Disciples no not though it could be proved God had promised to be their God Mr. B. adds Mr T. one day in the pulpit in pleading that the covenant belonged onely to the elect was pleased to bring me in as witnessing thereto in the Append of my Aphor. pag. 43. because I there say that the absolute promise or prophesie there mentioned is made onely to the elect when yet onely the very scope of the place is to prove that it is not the absolute promise that is most fitly called the Covenant of grace Answer
My alledging Mr Bs words was right and pertinent For they acknowledged the promise Heb. 8.10 to be absolute and to the elect onely which was enough for my purpose and this the Author of that Episte calls the new Covenant or Testament and however Mr Bs conceit is I have proved before the holy Ghost doth make it to be the Covenant of God and therefore I deem it fitly be called the covenant of grace chusing to speak as the Scripture speaks rather than as Mr B. conceives sittest SECT XXXIX Mr Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or covenant is not it that iâ— sealed in Baptism and the Lords Supper HE adds But that this absolute Promise or Covenant if you will call it so is not it that is sealed in Baptism and the Lords Supper I prove against Mr T. thus clearly Answer He should prove nothing against me though he should prove neither the absolute nor conditional promise to be sealed in baptism and the Lords Supper For though it be true that in some sense I grant Baptism and the Lords Supper to seal the covenant of grace yet in the sense and to the purposes Paedobaptists use to say the covenant is sealed by them I reject it and can freely yeild that the use uf Baptism and the Lords Supper is not to seal Gods Covenant either absolute or conditionall to us except by remote consequence but to signifie our duty of engaging our selves to be Christs Disciples in Baptism and to remember his death in the Lords Supper But Mr Bs dispute in this is against himself in that his arguments will overthrow his own assertion of infant-baptism and against his fellow Paedobaptists who make baptisme to seal the promise of Regeneration from Titus 3.5 and the promise of being a God to Abraham and his seed from Gen. 17.7 which the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. makes absolute and appropriates to the elect I need not cite again Paedobaptists speeches making baptism the seal of Regeneration and of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 having cited before Sect. 30 sundry to wit the Assembly in the Directory Mr M c. In the Assembly at Westminster their confession of faith chap. 28. Baptism is ordained by Jesus Christ to be to the baptized a sign and seal of the covenant of grace of his ingrafting into Christ of Regeneration of remission of sins and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to walk in newness of life Artic. 27 of the Church of England Baptism is a sign of Regeneration or Newness whereby as by an instrument they that receive baptism rightly are graffed into the Church the promises of forgiveness of sin and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the holy Ghost are visibly signed and sealed In the French Confess Artic 35. By Baptism as by a certain and stable seal this promise is sealed that Chriâ—t will be to us sanctification and justification In Mr Gatakers two books against Dr Davenant there are so many passages out of the chiefest Protestant Writers which do make baptism the sign and seal of Regeneration and of the promise of it that it would be tedious to transcribe them I shall poynt at some pages wherein they may be found Discept de vi bapt infant pag. 23 52 110 117 1â—8 Strict in Daven Ep. pag. 76 77 78. There is one passage which he cites often out of Vorstius That the Gospel Preachers are wont to acknowledge one onely generall effect of Baptism to wit the sealing of a double saving grace promised in the Gospel concerning the remission together and the purging out of sins by the Blood and Spirit of Christ which is by inward renovation which is absolutely promised Yea Mr Gataker a man deservedly much valued by Mr B. Discept de bapt infant saith That Baptism doth equally if not primarily design internall renewing regeneration mortification quickning which in that sign are not onely most clearly shadowed but also painted both the thing it self doth lowdly speak and the holy Scripture doth most expressly Rom. 6.3 6. Col. 2.11 12. T it 3.5 Eph. 5 25. And though all express not the sealing of regeneration alike by baptism some placing it in the assuring to the conscience some in the giving of title some of regeneration already given some of regeneration to be attained in time yet all make iâ— the seal of that covenant wherein God promiseth it and do commonly distinguish it from the Lords Supper which they make the seal of growth as they do baptism of new-birth and entrance into the Church So Mr M. in his Sermon p. 43 51. But let us hear what Mr B. opposeth 1 That which is sealed to by the Sacrament is a proper covenant having a restipulation on our parts as well as a promise on Gods part But an absolute promise is not a proper covenant with such a mutuall engagement but properly a meer promise or prophesie therefore it is not this absolute promise which is sealed by the Sacraments The Major M. T. cannot deny for he pleaded it himself â—n the pulpit as a reason to prove that infants might not be baptized because they could not engage themselves And he brought that passage in my foresaid Appendix pag. 68. as attesting it where I say it is a mutuall engaging sign or seal As it is given it is Gods seal as it is accepted it is ours And indeed the very definition of a proper Covenant of which Grotius de jure belli and other Lawyers will inform you sheweth as much that it must be a mutuall engagement Now in that absolute promise I will take the hard heart out of their bodies c. There is no such matter but onely God telleth what he will do Answer According to my own judgement I use not to teâ—m Sacraments Seals of the Covenant nor did I urge Mr Bs words otherwise than as an Argument ad hominâ—m to prove from his own words that infants have not baptism rightly according to his own grants 1. because there is no restipulation on infants part therefore there is no covenant properly so called between God and them and so baptism of infants is not a seal of a covenant and consequently according to the supposition of Paedobaptists no Sacrament 2 Baptism is saith Mr B. a mutuall engaging sign or seal as it is given it is Gods seal as iâ— is accepted it is our But in infant-baptism there is no mutuall engagement or signing Infants promise nothing nor sign or accept of any thing Ergo infant-baptism is not according to Mr Bs own grants right nor are these objections avoided by saying the parents covenant for them for neither is there any the least ground oâ— hint in Scripture that for baptismall covenanting the parents covenant should go for the childs covenant nor do in the practice of baptizing the parents restipulate though they declare their faith and if they should promise or engage for the child they should sin and so should
accuse a man of nonsense because he speaks good sense to say I do equivocate because I do not equivocate For he that useth a word onely in one sense doth not aquivocate equivocation being when a word is used in more senses than one Fallaâ—ia aquivocationis est quando ex unius vocis multiplici fignificatione sophisticè concluditur Dr. Prideaux Hypomn Log tract 4. c. 7. Sect. 2. Arist Sophist Eleâ—ch l. 1. c. 3. reckons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or equivocation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when with the same names and vowels we signifie not the same thing which evidently proves Mr M. guilty of equivocating from his own words For in the first conclusion of his Sermon he distinguisheth the covenant of grace for substance which he makes the Covenant of saving grace from the externall way of administration and yet blames me for not including it And if he by covenant of grace include the way of externall administraâ—ion how could he say in his Sermon pag. 26. in the recapitulation of his two first conclusions If the covenant be the same and the children belong to it Sure he will not say the way of externall administration is the same Wherefore from his own words he is deprehended to equivocate in the term Covenant of grace in the first conclusion meaning by it the covenant of saving graces and distinguishing it from the externall administration but in the second conclusion when he saith children belong to it he understands not the inward but the outward covenant not the covenant of saving grace buâ— the way of externall administration And yet he dare not say the â—nfant children of Gentile Christian believers belong to it that is the same way of externall administration for that is in the Jewish Legall Rites Asemblys Confess of Faith chap. 7. Art 5. Therefore he sophistically equivocates in the use of that term which is his frequent manner and yet he is not ashamed to accuse me of that of which his own words acquit me as if he had learned the Artifice in scolding to call another that first of which himself might be detected Nor is Mr. M. clear from equivocating in what follows in which I find muâ—h confusednesse and ambiguity CHAP. XXXVII That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an externall priviledge of visible Church-membership and initiall seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. M. asserts AFter twenty pages spent about the explication of his second Conclusion having varied it five or six times and as I have shewed in every of them still speaking ambiguously even then when he tells us he speaks as plain as he can possibly I pitch upon this which is pag. 116. as his second Conclusion Having said Infants of believers are made free according to Abrahams Copy he thus expounds himself True according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed that look as Abraham the Proselytes and their seed upon their visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods kingdom and houshold with their parents so it is here By which words it appears thar Mr. M. took this to be Abrahams Copy as he calls it that according to the promise made to Abraham I will be a God to thee and thy seed Abraham and his seed the proselytes and their seed upon their the parents visible owning of God and his Covenant had this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Godt Kingdom and Houshold with their parents 2. That so it is in the Christian Church by vertue of that promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Gentile believers upon their visibly owning of God and his Covenant have this visible priviledge for their posterity that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents Concerning which Conclusion I say still Mr. M. useth ambiguities of speech there being divers Covenants of God to wit the Old and the New and divers wayes of visibly owning God as by sacrificing circumcision c. by Baptism the Lords Supper frequenting the Church meetings of Christians c. divers kingdoms and housholds of God as the whole world and his Church the visible or invisible which might occasion various senses of Mr. M. his words But I ghesse his meaning to be thus As the Jewes and proselytes being circumcised their children were to be so also so Gentile-believers being baptized their children are to be baptized as visible Church-members which being the same with the Antecedent of Mr. M. his Enthymeme and the consequent it is evident Mr. M. his argument is a meer trifling tauâ—ology as I have often said But I shall not insist on it having in my Apologie Sect. 10. and elswhere shewed it That which I shall consider chiefly in his glosse on Gen. 1â— 7 which to me seems as or more absurd than the glosse of Papists Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I build my Church i. e. The Bishop of Rome shall be my Vicar generall of the Oecumenicall Church For 1. according to Mr. M. his Glosse Thee that is Abraham to whom the words were spoken is put for without all rule of Grammar or Divinity or as they speak in Logick supponit by every Jew or Proselyte and every believer or Christian Jew or Gentile who doth not visibly own God and his Covenant 2. According to this glosse the naturall seed of proselytes though but visibly owning God and his Covenant are called Abrahams seed without any use of Scripture which speak of no other seed of Abraham but 1. Christ Gal. 3.16 By excellency so called 2. by grace the elect Rom. 9.7 3. Believers Rom. 4 1â— 12 16 17. Gal. 3.29 4 By nature Gen. 21 12. Psal â—05 6 Gen. 15.13.18 Neither oâ— which are proselytes who do onely own God and his covenant 3. The promise of God to be a God to Abrahams seed is thus expounded The naturall seed of Abraham and the naturall seed of Proselytes and of Gentile Christians visibly owning God and his covenant shall have this visible priviledge that they should be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and Houshold with their parents In which paraphrase I note what he calls to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom a visible priviledge Now to be accounted I must refer to some person who doth so account and the accounting must be either an act of opinion or science or faith and then to be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom is not a visible priviledg but invisible it being in the thoughts of anonother and the sense should be I will be a God to thy seed that is men as v. 9. administrators shall in their thoughts take proselytes and their children to belong to my Kingdom or it is some outward transâ—unt act and then it is an initial seal or I cannot conceive what it
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
might have known whether he takes it in the same notion which I do whose Examen Mr. Cotton in his letter to me certified me that he was to examine A covenant in the proper acception is a promise single or mutuall the covenant of grace is Gods covenant or promise of grace a term not used in Scripture though agreeably enough to it Every covenant of God may be well enough termed A covenant of grace It was of his grace that is free favour that God made any covenant with man in innocency that he entred into covenant with the Israelites at the giving the Law at Mount Sinai yet commonly Divines oppose the covenant of grace to either of these covenants It is true there are who make the covenant at Mount Sinai the covenant of grace with a different administration which to be a mistake is shewed in that which follows Usually difference is made between the covenant of grace and the covenant of works or of the Law which is agreeable to the Apostles expressions Gal. 3.17 4.24 The one promiseth justification by keeping the Law the other by believing in Christ. I for my part take the covenant of grace for Gods promise of Evangelicall saving grace to wit regeneration justification by Christ c. according to the doctrine of the Author to the Hebrews chap. 8 9 10 1â— 12. 10 16 17. which our Lord Christ calls The New Testament Matth. 26.28 I acknowledge also that Gen. 17.7 and elsewhere this covenant was made to Abraham under câ—vert expressions which in their first and most obvious sense held forth other things But I am put to ghesse what Mr Cobbet means by the covenant of grace and in which words Gen. 17. and in what sense he placeth the covenant of grace there He speaks of a visible politicall Church-covenant and conceives the covenant of grace Gen. 17. to be invested with it either explici or implicit The visible poliâ—icall church-Church-covenant as I conceive from sundry writings of the New England Elders is that promise of members in a particular Church gathered in a Congregationall way wherein over and besides the promise they make of faith in God and in the Lord Christ they explicitly or implicitly promise to each other to walk in holy communion of Gods Ordinances and subjection to those that are over them with the members of the congregation to which they adj in themseâ—ves as members Mr. C. supposeth this covenant as elsewhere so here Gen. 17. to be included I wiâ—h many others see no clear ground for such a covenant there or elswhere Besides what he means by the covenant of grace considered as invested with a visible politicall Church-covenant if not explicit yet implicit is obscure Invested is as much as clothed and it is used as a term of Law as in the great question about investures into Bishopricks in former ages and so it notes a legall admission But in what sense the covenant of grace is said to be invested is somewhat dark This I conceive is the meaning That the covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 is made to Abraham and his seed considered as joyned by a visible politicall Church-covenant But I conceive such a position neiâ—her true nor safe Not true for no mention either explicit or implicit of such a Church covenant is here or in any of the places he cites None â—here For though God made the promise in reference to the Church which was to remain in the posterity of Isaac v. 18 19 20 21 yet that Church might be joyned by common profession of the same God without a promise explicit or implicit of walking togeâ—her in communion under an eternall politie God ordained Circumcision as a sign of the Covenant made with Abraham But in what words or fâ—ct there 's any implied way of restâ—pulation confession or promise to God I am yet to seek much mâ—re wherein they did bind themselves in a nearer religiousâ—ie one to another For though God intended by Circumcision to bind them to leave sin and keep his precepts and to direct them to look for the Messiâ—h yet that they by any word or act of theirs did promise to do so I find not there nor is it likely that Ishmael did make any such profession or promise to God or to others of the family considering his after carriage to Isaac and his expulsion from Abrahams house As for the other texts Deut. 29.12 13 there 's mention of entring into covenant with the Lord not a word of entring into covenant one with another much less of submitting to any outward Ecclesiastical governors or government The same may be said of the Covenant 2 Chron. 15.12 13. 2 Chron. 34 31 32. there 's a covenant to God mentioned but not a Covenant to each other called a Church-covenant 2 Chron. 30 There 's no mention of any covenant but of keeping the Passover Nehem. 10.29 30. it is said They clave to their brethren their Nobles and entred into an Oath to walk in Gods Law but that they entred into a covenant one with another I find not If the words They clave to their brethren their Nobles be meant of a promise to them yet a promise of subjection to them as Ecclesiasticall superiors of holding communion with them in ordinances for admission to Church-membership I find not there but an engagement with them to reâ—orm certain abuses And then Ordinances not a Covenant were made to charge themselves with for the service of the Lord Ezek. 16.8 There 's no mention of mans promise to God or to one another but the promise of God to them that he sware to Israel and entred into covenant with them and they became his Nor is the position safe that the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 is made to Abraham and his seed considered as joyned by a visible politicall Church-covenant for then should not the proselytes of the gate as for instance Cornelius the Centurion be included in the promise of being a God to him because it is certain he was not jâ—yned by a visible politicall Church-covenant to the Jewish Church sith he was uncircumcised and counted unclean insomuch as that Peters going in to him Aâ—ts 11.3 was conceived as unwarrantable for that reason And what can be the issue of this doctrine if received but perplexing superstitious fears of their salvation in some if they be not in Church-covenant for without the promise of being God to a person no man is sâ—ved and injurious censures of those not in Church-covenant as out of the way of salvation which will make it like the grand Imposture â—s Dr. Morton calls it of the Romish â—hurch That out of communion with it is no salvation I do not make such a Church-covenant unlawfull for what we are bound to do we may lawfully promise to do nor do I deny its expediency and usefulness especiâ—lly if it be not in too strict and intangling a form But I think there 's no sufficiâ—nt proof that
his owne or others as v. 9. The administraâ—ors parents or the Churches we might more easily judg of his position If he mean no more than this that there is a being in the Covenant of grace in respect of men that is men as administrators and others do think or judg some to be in the Covenant of grace that is that God hath promised saving grace to some to whom he hath not I grant it and I might say in the like manner some are excernally elected regenerated justified adopted who are not so savingly And I should grant that such as are taken to be in the Covenant of grace by reason of thâ—ir own profession of faith in Christ are rightly judged by us to be in the Covenant of grace and may be baptized though perhaps they shall not be saved But such as are taken by us to be in the Covenant of grace without Gods promise or act of their own Profession of faith by an administrators of baptism and others mistake Concerning the promise Gen 17. As if it were made to every believing Gentile by profession inchurched and his natural seed as Abrahams Church seed as Mr. C. calls them are not therefore rightly judged to be in the Covenant of grace nor rightly judged to be fit subjects of baptism which appears to be Mr C's meaning by his words Pag. 51. when he saith 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 Let us consider what Mr. C. brings to this purpose what he saith the promise is said to belong to those Jewes Rom 9.4 on whom yet the word took no saving effect v 6. is not right For v 4. is not meant by the promises he promise by excellency called the promise of the spirit Gal 3.14 given to Abraham v 17. distinct from the Law v 18. But the peculiar promises which are made to the Israelites upon the obeying of the Law that they should possess Canaan liue long in it and prosperously as Deut 5.16 and 28.3 c. For all that which is said Rom 9.4 is meant of what was proper co the Israelites after the flesh But the Covenant of grace is established or made a Law on better promises Heb 8.6 And the phrase Rom 9.6 not as if the woâ—d of God had taken none effect which is word by word not as if or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it may not be that is it is not possible or it may not be yeelded that the word of God fell or was not verified is meant not of the promises v 4 but of the promises mentioned v 8. to wit that Gen 17.7 Which he doth not say did belong to any exteâ—nally on whom it had no saving effect but suppâ—se it to have been verefied and made good to all to whom it was made who in Goâ—s intention were only the elect caâ—led therefore Children of the promise v â— that is those that were begoâ—tâ—n by the promise not to every child of Abraham by natural generation in particular not to Ishmael nor Esau. Nor is it right which he adds Hence Rom 9.4 By opposition to the Gentiles hey the Jewes meant v 4. where those which were not strangers to the Church but of it if he mean it of the Christian Church I grant the Jewes were not strangers to the covenants of promise but in the same Eph. 2 11 12. But that all the Gentile believers and their children were then that which they were not before is not a â—ight collection For as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uncircumcised in the flesh so thâ—y were still nor were they ever of the polity of Israel And if the Covenants of promise be meant of the Tables of the covenants and if the word promise be placed thus as some place it not having hope of the promise they might be still said to be strangers from the Covenants However if then they were acquainted with and partakers of the Covenants of promise this can be understood of none but true believers and the covenant as it was spiritual which is nothing to the being externally in the covenant of graces Mr. C. adds Hence God makes his covenant with them all Deut. 29 10 12 13 14 15. speaking there of that solemn renewall of the covenant of grace as Deut. 30 6 10 12 13 14. compared with Rom. 10 6 7 8. evinceth Answer The more ample discussing this place and vindicating my Exceptions from what Mr. B. replies I reserve till I answer his Plain Scripture proof c. part 1. c. 17 and his Corrective Sect. 5. For present I say If God did make his covenant with them all and it appears to have been the covenant of grace as Deut 30.6 10 12 13 14. compared with Rom. 10.6 7 8. evinceth then all must be not onely externally in the covenant of grace but also internally For the promise Deut. 30.6 is to circumcise the heart to love the Lord cannot be expounded of the external being in the covenant of grace but internal Mr B. in his Friendly Accommodation A new heart is given to the elect onely which is all one with the circumcised heart He goes on So Ezek 16.8 He made a covenant with that Church and people many whereof proved very base as that chapter sheweth Now this was a covenant of grace albeit invested with Church-covenant as appears in that v. 60. That God for that his Covenants sake considered as his will deal so graciously with them after all their provocations as v. 62 63. Albeit he did not thus properly for the sake of that investure of his covenant annexed scil thy covenant the Churches covenant abractively considered v. 61. See more Ezek. 36. from v. 17. to the chapters end Answer The thing that Mr. C. should prove is an externall being in the covenant of grace quoad homines But Ezek. 16.8 neither speaks of the covenant of grace but the covenant of the Law which was made in mount Sinai Junius the new Annot refer to Exod. 19. 24. Piscat Schol. in locum visitari te per Mosen educendo te ex Aegypto pangendo tecum fedus atque ita ducendo te in uxorem Nor is this meant of externall being in covenant in respect of men but of Gods promise to them as the words plainly import I sware unto thee and entred into covenant with thee saith the Lord. As for the reason why the covenant v. 8 must be the covenant of grace because he will deal graciously with them for that his covenant v. 60. it goes on this supposition that the covenant v. 8 is the same with the covenant v. 60. But Piscat Schol. on the place reckons that v. 60 to be the covenant made in the times of Araham Isaac and Jacob and Levit. 26.42 leads to it But were it granted to be the covenant by
to be in the Covenant of grace only externally For to deal falsly in Gods Covenant is no more than not to keep Gods Commands as the term Covenant is oft put Synecdochically Psal. 25.10 and 131.12 To forsake the holy Covenant is to forsake the Law to do against it is to do against the Law as Anticohus had imagination against the holy Covenant that is the Law of the Jews And that this is the meaning is apparent Psal. 44.18 where v. 17. is thus explained our heart is not turned back nor our steps declined from thy way This Covenant then was no other than the Law of Moses the Covenant made in Horeb specially the Decalogue whence the Ark called the Ark of the Covenant 1 Kings 8.1 the Decalogue the words of the Covenant Exod. 34.28 And it is apparent in that Antiochus endeavored to compel them to break that Law as to sacrafice to Idols to eat Swines flesh and now this Covenant was not the Covenant of grace For the Apostle plainly distinguisheth the Law from the promise 400 years before Gal. 3.17 and the Covenant at Sinai is opposed to that of grace called the Jerusalem above Gal 4 24. Nor is there any difficulty in that which Mr. C. objects that believers then might be in a free Covenant of grace and at the same time under the contrary Covenant of bondage For the believing Jews to wit David and the rest of those that believed Heb. 11. were under the command of the Covenant in Sinai yet under the Ceremonial part yea were not under the sentence or judgment of the Covenant of the Law so as to be justified or condemned by it The everlasting Covenant Isai. 24.5 is no other than the Law as is proved above It is said Rom 3.3 not 7. as it is printed If some believed not shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect But the inference of Mr. C. is frivolous the faith of God was plighted to them and they were externally in the Covenant though the faith of God took saving effect only in the elect and in the believing For I would know what the faith of God was whether it were the Covenant of saving grace or the outward Covenant If it were only the outward how did it take saving effect in the elect Did the faith of God take effect in that which was never promised The outward Covenant me thinks Mr. C. should not say did promise saving grace but externall right and administrations therefore saving grace is not the effect of that Covenant And indeed the outward Covenant is but a meer notion except understood Metonymically as Circumcision is called the Covenant as being the sign of it there being no faith of God plighted to any Gentile believer and his seed wherein God promiseth that they shall be accounted visible Church members and as having external right or enjoyment of Church administrations If he should it would be false many of them never attaining them or having right to them If it were the inward Covenant in which God plighted his faith then it took effect only in the elect and they only were in covenant Nor doth Rom. 9.6 intimate what Mr. C. dreames that the word or Covenant of grace took effect in all the Jews in some externally in the elect savingly But as the stream of Protestant writers whereof some are alleged in my Examen part 3 Sest 4. and others before in this part of the Review and the very words shew it took effect only in the elect who are therefore callâ—d v. 8 the Children of the promise distinguishingly from others and the Apostle plainly resolves that the seed Gen. 17.7 as not Ishmael but Isaac not Esau but Jacob and consequently no believers natural seed except elected As for Rom. 9.4 it is often shewed that the Covenants there are meant of the Tables of the Covenant and the promises the special promises made to the Israelites after the flesh as is manifest v. 4.5 expressing peculiar privileges to them distinct from what the Gentiles though believers have which Mr. C. saith the Covenant of grace and an outward Covenant are not two distinct Covenants but the Covenant of grace made with the elect in respect of their saving interest in that I wil be a God to them the same is made with others in respect both of visible interest and the visible administration of it I see no truth in it For there is no Scripture that ever expounds I will be a God to them that is they shall have visible interest and the visible administration of it that is they shall be circumcised c. many have the promise of saving intrest who neither have nor ever had visible or visible administration as their language is of the Covenant of grace and on the contrary many have no saving Interest yet have the visible intrest and administration Mr. C. speaks of which in truth follows the command not the Covenant Nor is it consistent with Mr. C's own suppositions that a man may be in the external Covenanâ— who is not in the Covenant of grace savingly that the one is only the visible interest and administration the other the promise of saving grace if they be not two distinct Covenants For they must needs be distinct Covenants which are made to different persons of different things as these are supposed to be by Mr. C himself Nor doth Mr. C. prove by any text that there is any other wâ—y of entring into the Covenant of grace ordinarily but by a true and lively faith It is true Ezek. 16.20 21 23. the children of the Israelites were Gods children by special right as his servants Levit. 25.55 because he redeemed them out of Egypt and he had entred a special Covenant with them and they the whole nation had also engaged themselves in a special Covenant to be his and it is true the Covenants and promises were theirs Rom. 9.4 and they were the children of the Prophets and the children of the Covenant which God made to Abraham Act. 3.25 that is the people among whom and out of whom Christ came to whom he was at first made known to whom the Prophets were sent but this doth not prove that they were all internally or externally in the Covenant of grace They had no right to be babtized yea the greatest part of them for this is spooken of the people of the Jews whether believers or not even of them that offered their sons and daughters to Divils denied Christ and were broken off by unbelief Rom. 11.20 Gal. 4.28 is impertinently brought to prove a bare external being in the Covenant of grace For it is meant only of believers born after the spirit v. 29. who by the spirit do wait for the hope of the righteousness which is by faith Gal. 5.5 It is not true that any of the 〈◊〉 members from the Churh of Ephesus Acts 20.30 are said to be purchased by the blood of Christ. It was judged
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-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-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
Mr. C. tells us Hence c. and this is the consectary he would infer from his fifth Conclusion and minding discourse about it But how from any thing said before That Christ is the head of the visible Church that visible Professors though not sincere are united to Christ as visible head this follows That Parents profession unites the child to Christ so as to give him right to baptism is a riddle to me If it were formed into an Argument thus If the visible professors confession of faith unites him to Christ as visible head Then it unites the child so far as to give him right to baptism But the visible professors c. Ergo. I should deny the consequence of the Major and expect it to be proved ad Graecas Calendas nor is there any proof in that which follows For were it granted that the parents act were the childs act yet it follows not that it is the childs act to give a right or title to baptism without an institution None of the texts produced no nor any other do shew that the parents act of professing faith did entitle the child to circumcision much less to baptism Cornelius his child was not entitled to circumcision though he and his house feared God was a devout man gave much alms to the poor and prayed to God alway Acts. 10.2 Even in circumcisi on the use of it had its rule onely from the command as I have often poved Not one of Mr. C. his Texts mentions the parents acts as entitling the child to fellowship of the church but obliging to duty Deut. 16.16 17 there 's an injunction That all the Males should thrice a year appear before God but this was enjoyned not to parents onely but also to children married or unmarried And if it prove any thing like what Mr. C. would it proves rather the males act to stand for the females than the parents for the children More likely in this the younger males did appear insteed of the aged weak so the childs act went for the parents However here 's nothing of the parents act giving right to initiation into fellowship of the Church there was nothing required to that in the national Church of Israel but their descent Deut. 26.17 18. there 's no mention of a parents act for his child intitling him to solemn initiation into fellowship of the Church What is said Thou hast avouched this day the Lord to be thy God is not said to be done by the parents for the children nor to be done to entitle them to solemn initiation into the fellowship of the Church Deut. 29.10 11 12 13 14. whose act soever is mentioned whether of the parents or Captains Elders Officers or men of Israel It was an act done in behalf of the nation both those born already and those to be born after not to entitle them to initiation into fellowship of the Church but to bind them the more firmly to their duty and therefore none of these instances are to the point of parents acts in the face of the visible Church taken as the Childrens acts for solemn initiation in Church fellowship Yet if they had that this had been enough for baptism and Church-membership in the Christian Gentile Churches will not be proved till the rule about Circumcision and the constitution of the Jewish Church be a rule to us about baptism and the Church-membership of the Christian Church which neither agrees with Christs or his Apostles appointment or the practise in the N. T. nor with the new english principles of Church constitution Goverment but Judiazing notions opposiâ—e to the Gospel What he saith the parents omission to circumcise his child is counted the childs act of breaking Gods Conant Gen. 17.14 depends on this that the parents omission of circumcision is the childs act of breaking Covenant but many Protestant Divines and others understand it of persons of years as Piscat Schol. in locum Diodati new Annot. Grotius c. And though Chamier counted it to be understood of the Infant Tom 4 Paustrat Cath. l. 3. c. 2. Sect. 20. c. Yet he expounds the verse passively thus the male the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised that soul shall be cut off from his people my Covenant is broken Either way expounded it is inpertinent to Mr. Cs. purpose they that expound it as Aben Ezrae apud Christoph. Cartwright on the place of the parent understand both the fault and the punishment to be his It is true Iohn 4.50 51. Matth. 15.22 to 29. Mark 9.12 to 18. parents believing is accepted for the cure of children and so Mark 2.5 the faith of the bringers of the palsy man was accepted but this doth not prove a title to baptism by the parents confession any more than by the Midwives or Gossips bringing to the Foâ—â— nor was it the confession of faith but reality though not known to men which Christ lookd on so that if this be a good reason the Fathers praying in Secret though not in the face of the visible Church should give Title to Baptism After many dictates without proof he tels us As the Covenant laid hold on by the lively faith of gratious parents as made with respect to their elect children hath mighty force to effect very gratious things in the elect feed yea albeit dying young as sundry of those elect ones of Abrahams race did Rom. 9.6 yea so as to make their outward washings to become effectual in Christ to an inward cleansing Ephes. 5.25.26 yea so as to bring in and bring home many of such covenant-children Whence those revolters beloved for their covenant-fathers sake as such Rom. 11.28 and hence made as a ground of their return v. 15 16. so is there such validity in the covenant invested with church covenant albeit but unworthily oft-times held forth by the parents which doth beget upon the children an externall filiall relation unto God and to his Spouse the visible church whence that respect of children of God and his church by vertue of that espousall covenant Ezek. 16.8 Even in the children of idolatrous members v. 20 21 23. Great is the force of this way of the covenant so cloathed Albeit many unworthy members are giâ—t up in it to hold them and theirs in externall communion Jer. 13.11 untill either the church be divorced from God or the particular members be disfranchised by some church-censure of such a covenant-privilege Answer Though this reasoning contain nothing but dictates unproved and incoherent yet sith it carries some shew of an Argument à comparatis I shal say somwhat to it 1. There 's not aword in the texts alleged that shews what Mr C. here asserts that the covenant laid hold upon by the lively faith of gracious parents as made with respect to their children hath mighty force to effect very gracious things in the elect seed Nor is there a word in those Texts to prove such a covnnant made to
any gracious parent concerning his naturall children It is true Rom. 9.6 it is said the word took effect and this I deny not to be the word of promise to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed But then it is expresly said v. 7 8. that this seed of Abraham is not his children by natural generation but the speciall choice seed whether they were his seed according to nature or ingraffed there 's not a word of the efficacy of this covenant by the lively faith of the parents but by vertue of Gods election v. 11. The Text Ephes. 5.26 seems to me to contain not onely the word of promise as sanctifying or purifying the Church but also the word of narration contained in the Gospel as Luke 1.2 Acts 8.4 10.36.44 Joh. 17.8.17 Rom. 10.8 preached and believed not by the parents but the parties purified Acts 15.9 who as they hear the word and believe so are baptized upon their believing It is true that the Jewes hereafter to be ingraffed again are said according to the election to be beloved for the Fathers Rom. 11.28 But this is meant of the Jewes onely and it is not at all meant of the immediate parents of those Jewes reingraffed for they doubtless will be Infidels but of the ancient Fathers Abraham Isaac Jacob out of the remembrance of their following God and Gods covenant to them which were both singular and therefore cannot be verrified of every believers natural children as it is there meant and shall be verified of them 2. There 's not a proof for the other part of the comparison that there is any such validity in the Covenant invested with Church-Covenant albeit unworthyly oftentimes held forth by the parents to beget upon the children an external filial relation unto God and to his spouse the Church visible For Ezek. 16 8. mentions Gods covenant which he swear not their's by which they became his and those whose sons and daughters were born to him v. 20. are said to sacrafice them to be devoured had caused them to be slain and deliverd them to pass through the fire for them Mr. C. confesseth they were Idolatrous members and the text mentions their Idolatry to be of the highest kind even the sacraficing their children and if these were in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenanant and did thereby beget an external filial relation to God and to his spouse the visible Church then may the worst of men even open Idolatrers that offer their children to Moloch and sacrafice them to the Devil be in the Covenant of grace and in Church-covenant and therby in those whom God hates and who go a whoring after Idols yea the Devils in a most horrid manner there may be validity in this horrid estate to beget an external filial relation unto God to his spouse the visible Church for their children Horrendum dictu The meaning of the text and the impertinency of its allegation by the Assembly by Mr. C. and others hath been often shewed Jerem. 13.11 makes nothing to the purpose God in the wilderness had made the whole house of Israel to cleave to him in the Covenant at mount Sinai and by his special deliverances and providences for them What is this to prove that the Idolatrous posterity of that people are by the Covenant clothed with Church-covenant held to God they and theirs in external Church-communion until either that church be devorced from God oâ— the particular members disfranchised by some Church censure of a Church covenant privilege 3. were the first part of the comparison proved that the Covenant laid hold on 〈◊〉 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
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
names of the 12. tribes and these represented the elect for whom Christ made intercession and atonement not every Iâ—raelite Rom. 9.6 What Mr. C. saith the Covenant of works holds out pardon or mercy to transgress I do much question It seems to me that Aâ—ab though under a Covenant of works yet had some mercy 1 Kings 21.29 And whether the offence against some of the laws were not in some respect forgiven Levit. 4. to them who had not faith in Christ for the sacrafice they offered which were all offered according to the Law Heb. 10.8 I do make question Nor do I think but that by the Covenant of the law in respect of temporal evils there was some pardon by vertue of obedience to legal prescriptions though some sins as of presumption Num 15. were not no not to them that were in the covenant of grace as its liâ—ely in Eli. his Case 1 Sam. 3.24 see Gethard Ioh. Voss. resp ad Judic Ravensp c. 22.23 Concerning the Covenant of the Law though it require no faith in Christ or repentance for justification yet whether according to the covenant of the law some repentance were not accepted for revoking some temporal evils contrary to the promises of the Covenant with the Iews at mount Sinai may be doubted from Deut. 29 21.25 and 30.2 3 8 9 10. But of these Chapters more hereafter in answer to M. B. I grant no salvation but by Christ but denies that therefore al the Iews best worst had salvation external covenant-right nor though al the Iews best worst had the same dispensers of the covenant mentioned Exod. 19.5.6 24.7.8 wil it follow they had all right at least externally in the covenant of grace For that speaks of the covenant of the law I grant that the first Covenant of works was made withal in Adam and that the Covenant Gen. 17. was a particular covenant made with the seed of Abraham yet the Covenant at mount Sinai was not made with all men without distinction but only with Israel whom he brought out of Egypt the Jews Ro. 11.20 were broken off from the invisible church of true believers which was in that nation in their progenitors as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. c. I agree with Mr. C. that the Covenant in Horeb Deut. 29.1.2 with Deut. 30.6 had the stipulation of do this and live and that the Covenant of the law was differnt from the promise Gen. 17. that it held out temporals this externals How the Gentiles were ingraffed in the room of the Iewes and not into the externall right privilege as by Mr C. imagines is shewed in the Review ubi supra That the covenant of Sinai was without mercy I question as above And methinks Ezek. 16.60 proves That God would remember his covenant with Israel in the dayes of their youth and shew them mercy for it Now the covenant made with Israel in the dayes of its youth is meant of the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt for so the whole description of their pitiful estate which can be referred to no other than the time of their bondage in Egypt v. 4 5 6 7. after which was his covenant in the dayes of their youth v. 8 shews the covenant in the dayes of their youth to have been the covenant at mount Sinai And so the new Annot. on Ezek. 16 8 I sware unto thee I made a solemn covenant with thee that I would take thee to be my people Exod. 19 24 chapters Ier. 2.2 Piscat S hol in v. 7 nudissima i. e. destituta omni ope pressa sc servitute in Aegypto in v 8 visitari te per Mosen educendo te ex Aegypto pangendo tecum fedus atque ita ducendo te in uxorem Grot. in Ezek 16.5 Populus enim in Aegypto natus est in v. 7. sic exprimitur miseria Geâ—tis in Aegypto in v. 8 ingressus sum pactum tecum in Sinai As for Mr C. his paraphrase on Ezek. 16.60 I will remember my covenant with Thee not with this or that particular Jew but with them all in an Ecclesiastical way and in respect of externall right albeit some onely had the saving benefits thereof as being the select covenanters mainly intended He therein supposeth that some had the saving benefit of that covenant which is contrary to Rom. 3 20. That by the deeds of the Law shall no flesh be justified in Gods sight And he supposeth the covenant was made with them all in an Ecclesiasticall way and in respect of externall right Which what it is else but this that they should all have a right to circumcision and other Ecclesiastical privileges I know not Whereas the covenant was of prosperity in Canaan continuance of long life c. to them upon obedience to the law he gave them by Moses which notwithstanding they had broken were carried captive yet he would remember his covenant made with that people when he brought them out of Aegypt and upon the prayers of Daniel c. restore them to their own land Esay 48 1 2 3 c. teacheth the Jewes that notwithstanding they were evill yet he would for his names sake that the heathens might not say that God could not deliver them and bring them from the north v. 10 11 14. The like is Ezek. 20 14. The objection from Rom. 9 7 8 is ill framed and as ill answered 1. it is proved from the Text that the promise of fulâ—â—lling of which the Apostle speaks was the promise to Abraham I will be the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 from the terms used Rom. 9.7 8. which shews that the question was how Gods word could be true concerning Abrahams seed if the Jewes were rejected as the Apostle supposeth v. â— 2. That the answer is directly this that this promise was not made to all Israel or to all the children of the flesh that is begotten of Abraham by naturall generation for it was not promised to Ishmael and Esau but to the elect as Isaac and Jacob whence this proposition ariseth They onely are children of the promise that is by an usuall Hebraâ—sm subjects of the promise to whom it belong as children of wrath to whom wrath belongs a son of perdition to whom perdition belongs who are elect therefore not all the naturall seed of Abraham And consequently the promise Gen. 17.7 belonged not in the Evangelicall sense to the body of the Jewes even the worst Now what doth Mr. C. answer He distinguisheth between children of the promise in respect of externall filiation and externall salvation and applies it thus In the later they were not but if you take it of the Church-seed of the promise and such as were externally adopted of God and instated in the covenant of grace as invested with church covenant so they were children even of the free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3 25 26 and had
the promise indefinitly as Deut 30.6 Jerem 31.37 Gen. 17.7 In which answer 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onely to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25 26 Deut 30.6 by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart The second objection is better framed yet not so fully as had been requisite Mr C. his conclusion is That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenaâ—nt belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them in respect of externall right to outward ordinances But that is false For it did not belong to the children after the flesh to the Jerusalem that then was which was in bondage with her children they were to be cast out being of the bondâ—woman Gal. 3.23 25 28 30 31. Ergo the covenant of grace c. Again They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right are children of the promise Gen. 17.7 But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as is proved from Gal. 4.28 29 Rom. 9 8. Ergo Now what doth Mr. C. answer He tells us That they are called children of the flesh not begotten by naturall generation for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh But he is called a child of the flesh who though born by naturall generation of Abraham yet sought righteousness by the Law which was not Ierusalem of old but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childreÌ„ told them they were the Divels children Iohn 8.39 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace as invested also with Church-cavenant children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3.25 26 and had the promises indefinitly as Deut. 30 6. Jer. 31 37. Gen. 17.7 c. beloaging to them Rom. 9.4 and were children of God Christs Matth. 15 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12 those that rejected Christ are called Christs own but not because of their right in him or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt and other mercies to them and their nearness of consanguinity to him as Paul calls Israel his flesh Rom. 11.14 Christ being from them according to the flesh Rom. 9 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision but no externall right to the covenant of grace as Mr C. dreams SECT LXIII That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace To this he answers That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham and being much later than it Gal 3.16 17. And after when the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9 note not two Testaments specifically different but numerically Besides it 's called a first and second Testament scil in order of succession so the former is said to be faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Reply The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants that of Sinai and that of Abraham 2. That these two covenants the first and the second the New and Old mentioned Heb 8 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials To which I reply That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai should be under the promise For he supposeth them to be cast out Gal 4.21 30 and saith v. 31 we are not children of the bondwoman that is under the Law v 23 but of the free that is the promise Yea cha 5.18 If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law The like whereto is said Rom 6 14 Gal 3 10 11 12 I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace that is believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law and the hope of the Gospel and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan but not in respect of righteousness and life or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege As for the other part of the answer I find Mr Perkins on Gal 5 24 25 saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials But let 's examine it The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference It is granted that the new and old first and second covenant differ not in the genus no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood they are all covenants of God But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai and the new covenanâ— and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials â—s I am assured a manifest error both against Scripture and I think the Authors themselves though not only Mr C. here but also the Assembly Confession of Faith c. 7. Art 5. saith The covenant of grace was administred c. and is called the old Testament which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai I conceive from these words of Mr M Dâ—fâ—nce page 188. Alas Sir why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham
mistake he should then have found fault with his own act he saith therefore for remedy of such complaint and jarring a second covenant was established which should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plaintless and therefore the covenant of grace takes away occasion of complaint or finding fault because it provides for them to whom it was made that they should not occasion God to complain by their breaking of it as the first covenant had done which was faulty occasioning God to complain in that it was broken Mr. C. saith it was faulty comparatively not absolutely and his meaning seems to be that the first covenant was faulty because of its imperfect manner of teaching the Gospel But he is therein mistaken For as I shewed from the words the first covenant is said to be faulty because of the complaint of God against the Israelites as not keeping â—t as the holy Ghost expounds the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 7. by the expression v. 8. proving it not to have been faultless that is without complaint because he complained of them v. 8 to wit that they abode not in it v. 9. which if it had been the covenant of Evangelical grace they should certainly have done because that provides for the keeping and perseverance in it by writing the lawes in their hearts and forgiving their sins 2. The same is further proved from chap. 12.18 c. where 1. the covenant at mount Sinai is set down as given with horror to shew that it begat nothing but affrightments even in the best Moses himself whereas the covenant of grace begets joy and gladness before God 2. It is said the Hebrew Christians were not come to therefore it was not the covenant of grace 3. That they were come to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant v. 24. in opposition to Moses the Mediator of the old 3. From ch 10 29. where the blood of the new covenant is said to sanctifie And ch 13.20 Christ brings back the sheep by the blood of he everlasting covenant This everlasting covenant is that which was confirmed by the blood of Christ oppositly or in contradistinction to that which was confirmed by the blood of Calves and Goats Heb. 9.19 Therefore that covenant was not everlasting nor confirmed by Christs blood and consequenâ—y not the Covenant of grace 4. The same is the express doctrine of Paul Gal. 4.24 where he saith Agar and Sara are two covenants and he saith Agar or one Covenant was from mount Sinai and that this genders to bondage and is in bondage with her children v. 25. calls them that are under it such as are begotten according to the flesh v. 29. to be cast out v. 30. and opposeth it to Sarah that is the promise the Jerusalem above who is free mother of all believers begetting children of the promise born after the spirit children of the free woman Now what is this but the covenant of grace and the other of works For the covenant of grace never genders to bondage nor is in bondage with her children who are not according to the flesh to be cast out but free the mother of believers bringing forth children of the promise born after the Spirit children of the free woman Therefore the covenant at mount Sinai was not the same with the covenant of Gospel-grace but a covenant of works 5. In the same Epistle chap. 3.12 he saith the Law is not of Faith that is the covenant of the Law doth not promise righteousness before God upon faith but by works v. 13. therefore the covenant of the Law was not the covenant of Gospel-grace 6. The same is expressed v. 16 17 18 21 where the Law is opposed to the promises the inheritance is denied to be by it or that it could give life or righteousness by it therefore it is not the covenant of grace for life righteousness and inheritance is by it The like is Gal 2.21 Rom 4.13 14 15 16 3 20 21. 7. From Rom 10.5 where the Apostle expresly saith that Moses described the righteousness of the law that the man that doth them shall live in them and this he makes opposite to the word of Faith whence it follows it was the covenant of works which was the Law For what is the covenant of workes but that which promiseth life by doing the Law Nor doth it make against it to say the Apostle v. 4. saith Christ was the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth for in whatsoever sense that be meant yet it is certain the denomination of a covenant of grace or of works is not taken from the end of the Covenanter or the consequent on the covenant or command but the promise and condition therefore what ever end God had in giving the law or what event soever fell out upon it yet the covenant of the law promising righteousness upon perfect obedience to the law and not otherwise it is to be termed a covenant of works not of Gospel-grace 8. From Rom. 6.14 where the Apostle saith Sin shall not have dominion â—ver you for ye are not under the law but under grace which supposeth that they who are under the law are not under grace which cannot be understood of the command of the law for men may be and are under the command of it and yet under grace therefore by the law is meant the covenant of the law and then they which are under the covenant of the law are not under grace which they should be iâ— the covenant of the law were generally the same with the covenant of grace 9. From Rom 7.4 We are dead to the Law by the body of Christ v. 6 We are delivered or as I would read it we are discharged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the law even the Moral law v. 7. not as a rule of obedience but as a Husband or Covenant on which we depend for maintenance help supply sentence countenance reward But if the law were the covenant of grace we should not be dead to it or delivered from it Ergo. 10. From 2 Cor. 3 6 the covenant of the law is called the letter which killeth opposite to the new covenant in which the Spirit which quickneth is ministred and v 7. he expresly calls it the ministration of death graven in stones the ministration of condemnation v. 9 opposite to the ministration of righteousness of which Paul denies himself to be a Minister therefore it was not the covenant 〈◊〉 Evangelical grace but of works Yea Mr Cobbet himself page 65. The covenant in Horeb had the stipulation of Do so and live not so in the covenant of grace that was imbondaging shewed the way of worship gave not grace to act it was against us c. The Assembly Confess of Faith c. 7. Art 2. ch 19 Art â— cite Gal 3.12 Rom. 10 5 Gal. 3 10 which speak of the covenant of the law to shew the covenant of workes made with Adam which shews
they take them to be the same or heed not what they cite chap. 19. Art 6. True believers are not under the law as a covenant of works not as due to them by the Law as a Covenant of works Greater Catech page 25. The regenerate are delivered from the Morall law as a covenant of works Yea Mr M. his words denying the law to be part of the covenant made to Abraham but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ impossible to be kept which are not to be â—rid of the covenant of grace doth in effect make it the covenant of works Mr Anthony Burgess when he distinguisheth vindic legis lect 24. pag. 223 saith the law considered more largly as that whole Doctrine delivered on mount Sinai with the preface and promises adjoyned and all things that may be reduced to it was a covenant of grace but more strictly as it is an abstracted rule of righteousness holding forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience abstracted from Moses his administration of it was not of grace but of works In which words he denies not that it held forth life upon no terms but perfect obedience and so it was a Covenant not of grace but of works 2 he shews not that it was given as a Covenant upon any other terms or that it did propound or promise righteousness before God upon condition of faith in Christ but only tels us take the Law for the whole doctrine c. Which is in effect all one as to say The covenant God made was of works yet withal he delivered many things which shewed he would also have them look at Christ which we grant true but no where that he promised righteousness through Christ in that Covenant Mr. Blake Vindic. Faed c 24. pag. 174. the Law is taken sometimes in that strict sense as containing a Covenant of works and holding forth life upon condition of perfect obedience So Rom. 10.5 6. and 3.21 22. Gal 3.18 It were no hard matter to shew many of Protestant Writers who call the Covenant of the Law at mount Sinai the Covenant of works but these suffice What is objected to the contrary is not from the tenor of the covâ—nant but from some adjuncts of it as 1 because there were sacrafices other rites appointed it must be a Covenant of grace Answer the sacrafices as they were commanded so they did belong to the Covenant of works But as God used them as shadows and types of Christ to come so they signifie Gods purpose oâ— Gospel-grace in Christ but by another Covenant not that at mount Sinai 2 Gods end was not to give life by the Law but to direct to Christ. Answer 1 I grant the first and thence it appears he intended it not for a covenant of grace 2. it directed not to Christ as it was propounded Covenant-wise but by accident in that it made known sin and so made Christ appear necessary and this also proves that it was of it self as propounded a Covenant of workes 3 God could not enter into a Covenant of works with man fallen Answer True so as to justifie him by it yet for other ends he may as to discover sin shew mans impotency As Christ said to the young man Matth. â—9 16. if thou wilt enter into life keepe the commandements though he knew he could not have life that way and v 21. commands him to sel all though it did but shew his covetousness not make him perfect The covenant of grace is to be judged such from the tenor of the promise and condition not from Gods ends For if so then the Gospel it self being sent to some to harden them should be a Covenant of works because the end was to to condemn them by it 4 That God begins the Decalogue with I am the Lord thy God c. Answ 1 He is said to be the God of the spirits of all flesh Numb 16.22 yet thereby is not proved all are in the Covenant of grace 2 It may be understood that he was their God de jure that he had right to command them because he brough them out of Egypt 3 the plain answer is that he was their God according to the Covenant of grace made with Abraham antecedently to the giving of the Law not by the Covenant of the Law And for that which is often objected that in the second commandement God promised mercy to thousands but he promiseth no mercy but in a Covenant of grace I know how that can be proved I concieve that God did and doth shew temporall mercies out of his long patience by the Covenant of the Law though no man be justified by it before God neither Psal. 105.8 nor any other prove that the Covenant at mount Sinai was the same with that to Abraham though the promise of Canaan was to a 1000 generations yet on condition of obedience Dan. 9.4 Ierem. 11.4 6 7 8. when they brake Gods Laws they were expelled and so when they slew the heir of the Lord of the vicâ—ard he took his kingdome from them and gave it to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it Matth. 21.43 I do not say that a naturall covenant ex natura rei is a covenant of works but it is undoubted that the covenant on mount Sinai was a covenant made with the whole nation of the Jewes and it is proved before to have been a covenant of works It is untruly said That the gospelâ—Gospelâ—covenant Gal. 3.9 was of a national nature For that is a national Covenant which is made with a whole nation that is all the people descended from such a stâ—â—k whereas v. 9. the Apostle by saying so then they that are of the faith of Abraham are blessed with faithful Abraham plainly expounds who he means by all nations v. 8. to wit not whole nations but believers of all nations The Covenant of works at mount Sinai though it did not justifie before God yet it held that nation in Canaan till they set up other Gods and revolted from the true God and upon their forsaking Idols they might plead it for the restoring of them to their own land or continuance in it Yea God did condescend so far that if there had been in Ierusalem a man that had executed judgment and sought truth he would have pardoned it and not brought the Chaldeans upon it to burn it Ierem 5.1 It is true the Gospel threatens and executes corporal punishments and promiseth rewards to the disobeying or obeying of it but not an expulsion out of or setling in any one Country of an entire nation but personal evils or rewards upon personal disobedience or obedience The Covenant of grace admits of no carnal hypocrites nor is it so said Gal 4.21 22 23. though it 's not denied but many who are admitted into the visible Church are such To the eight objection That was in the flesh this in the heart Mr. C. speaks thus Answ. was that only in their flesh was
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
he to be circumcised and therefore the seal follows not the covenant but the command even where the promise goes before What he adds Else what had become of them if they had died then in respect of the ordinary covenant means of their good Rom. 9.6 Methinks Mr. C. might have as easily answered himself as he would do a Papist pleading this very plea for the necessity of infants baptism to salvation or about the case of famales or still-born infants Surely he would say God supplies that without means which he bestowes on others by ordinary means and so infants of a day old may speed well without circumcision To what purpose Rom. 9.6 comes in here I know not This and some other passages seem to be the inconsiderate speeches of a man dreaming To the objection with the Jews the Church and State were the same but not so now Mr. C. thus writes Answ. God never confounded Church and Civill State either then or now Who dare make God the author of confusion which is the God of order He then kept them severall paling in the Civill State with the Judicials with which the Church as such dealt not but as Civil cases came under a Church consideration She had her Ceremonials and Morals to regulate her Kings and Princes Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and word onely in their own Sphears The Elders of the Assemblies knew and acted in their places Ecclesiastically without interruption from Civill officers or intruding upon Civil Officers as such as Josh. 9. 16.1 2 Acts 14. Luke 4. The matters of the King and of the Lord were carefully bounded and sundred 2 Chron. 17.11 Answ. According to the constitution of the Jewish people by God the Church was not one body and the State another but all the same persons were of the Church who were members of the Common-wealth he that had the right of a Iew had the right of a Church-member nor were any taken in or cast out of the one but withall he was taken in or cast out of the other Nor hereby is God made the Author of confusion but good order was setled kept in this way of coincidency of State Civil and Ecclesiastical Nor is it true that God kept the Church and Civill State severall or paled in the Civill State with Judicials by which it was divided from the Church In the Church the Priest dealt as well in judicials as in ceremonials the Priest and the Levite as well as the Iudge gave sentence in matters of blood and plea as well as between stroak and stroak Deut. 17.8 9. Eli Samuel Iehoiadah judged Israel managed State-affairs as wel as Temple service Nor do I know any such Iudicials but that they did belong to the Church or Priests who were Iudges as well as to the Civill State that is the Princes As there were ceremonials and morals to regulate Kings and Princes so there were also lawes to regulate the Priests But no where do we read of any Court kept by the Church or Officers of the Church that is Priests and Levits wherein to censure Kings and Princes for meer morall sins called now somewhat besides the Scripture use of the word Scandals though we find Princes deposing Priests It is true Priests Levits and Elders had their proper work and moved onely in their own Sphears And so had Princes and Souldiers but not so as to make two distinct Corporations in Israel If by Elders of the Assemblies which knew acted Ecclesiastically in their places he mean any other than the Priests and by their Ecelesiasticall knowing and acting the taking cognizance of moral evils and proceeding against them by Ecclesiasticall censure in a Court distinct from the Civill I must confess I find not either such Assembly or such proceedings in the texts brought by Mr C. or any other I grant there was a dististinction between the matters of the King and of the Lord 2 Chro. 19.11 that Amaziah the chief Priest was over the Iudges whom Iohoshaphat sent forth in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Iudah for all the Kings matters But this doth not prove that these men did keep severall Courts but that in the same Synedrium these persons were best fitted to direct the one in one sort of matters the other in the other As in a Parliament Senate or Council of Lords Bishops Lawyers Souldiers though they sit and act together yet one may be more specially for one business and another for the other Nor doth it appear that Iehoshaphat assigned in the Cities some Iudges for one kind of causes and others for others But because there was occasion to have recourse in many difficult cases to the Synedrum at Ierusalem he instructs them whom they should have there for their help according to the law Deut. 17 8 9 c. But I leave the Reader to Mr Seldens books de Synedrijs Etraeorum to resolve him in this point What Mr C. gathereth out of the words of I. S. that he saith That God made a covenant of grace in generall and so with the body of the Jewes infants and all serves not Mr C his turn unless he meant his naturall seed in-generall which that he did grant in respect of Evangelicall grace I do not believe What he saith touching Baptism that it sealeth the Covenant indefinitely to all sorts and that it sealeth an infants present federall grace and unto future grace likewise unto grown ones it sealeth personall grace less principally covenant-grace principally is meer fancy without any Scripture which makes no such distinctions of federall grace and personall of the sealing one grace principally another less principally of sealing an infants present federall grace and unto future grace of baptism sealing the covenant indefinitly to all sorts which the Scripture makes the act of the person baptized only to testifie his own repentance and faith I proceed to examine the ninth Section of that Chapter Sect. 9 Mr C. sets down this Conclusion That the covenant-interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched believers is Gospel as well as such Covenant-interest of grown persons SECT XLIV Animadversions on the ninth Section of the same Chapter in which the Covenant-interest externall and Ecclesiastical of infants of inchurched believers is pretended not proved to be Gospel in which his allegations of Deut. 30.6 c. Gen. 17.8 Luke 19 9. Deut. 29.10 c. Ezek. 16.1 c. Gen. 9.25.26 and other places are examined Answ IN my Examen page 51. I said They that say the Covenant of grace belongs not onely to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these add to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed And page 122. It is no wrong to say it that it is a new Gospel to affirm that this is one of the promises of the covenant of grace That God wil be
the God of believers and of their seed that the seed of believers are taken into covenant with their parents I cannot derive its pedigree higher than Zuinglius To this Mr C. opposeth his seventh Conclusion with ambiguity and seeming hesitancy For what else can be the reason of those terms at least as well which are not like the expressions of a man that is well resolved what to hold But that we may rip up this Conclusion 1. He supposeth that right to outward ordinances or more particularly to an initiall seal is covenant-interest from the covenant of grace which is a mistake as I have often shewed 2. That such externall covenant interest of grown persons is Gospel without Scripture which mentions onely justification by faith and life by Christ to be the Gospel not such a covenant interest as they call it which may be to reprobates as well as to elect persons 3. He speaks to believers inchurched by such a covenant as the Scripture mentions not 4. He annexeth the covenant interest he speakes of to this Church-covenant as well as to the covenant of grace without any warrant but his own conceit nor shewes how far it is annexed to the one with or without the other 5. He asserts the covenant interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall of infants of inchurched believers 6. That this is Gospel The first place he brings for his Conclusion is Deut. 30 6 11 12 13 14 compared with Rom. 10.6 7 8 and saith The matter of the promise scil inward power of grace sheweth it was a Gospel-promise like that Heb. 8.10 11 12. Ans. This is enough to shew the impertinency of this text to prove the meer externall Ecclesiasticall interest of infants of inchurched believers For it contains that promise of inward grace which Mr. B. saith belongs onely to the elect Friendly Accom pag. 362. 2 Saith he Now this was made to the seed or children of these church members as ch 29.14 15. here is not any evasion as is usuall in mentioning Abrahams seed c. this people to whom this was made being not so spiritual themselves Answ. I grant that the promise Deut. 30.6 of circumcising thine heart and the heart of thy seed is meant of the seed of those then assembled but not of all their seed but onely such as were elect nor at all times but a speciall time upon their return to God when they were in captivity nor at all to their infant-seed but to their grown seed as Mr B. proves in the words and place above cited Friendly Accom page 361. And whereas Mr. C. conceives the people to whom this promise was made not so spiritual he is mistaken For if God promised to circumcise their heart they must be spiritual 3 That it was not a bare tender which I grant 4. saith he Lest any doubt should arise how this should be ratified and made good Moses prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen in whâ—m this covenant was ratified v. 12 13. All which the Apostle further explaineth Rom. 10.6 7 8 Answ. I do not conceive that either Moses Deut. 30.11 12 13. useth the words there to shew how the promise v. 30.6 should be ratified or that he prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen Deut. 30.11 12 13. or that the Apostle Rom. 10.6 7 8. so explains it He that reads the chapter may perceive that Deut. 30. v 11 12 13 14. are brought to this end that Moses might prevent the excuse which might be made for their disobedience by alleaging that Gods lawes were at such a distance from them as that they could not come to them And though it is true that the Apostle appliâ—s those words to the word of faith Rom. 10.6 7 8. yet it is manifest that it was not a prediction of Christs resurrection as there the words stand 1. from Deu. 30.10 where the commandment mentioned v. 11. is said expresly to be Gods commandment and statute which are written in this Book of the Law 2. That it was that which was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it v. 14 which is meant of the Law not of the word of faith concerning Christ dead and risen which was not to be done by us but to be believed Rightly saith Beza Annot. ad Rom. 10.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 baddabar quo vocabulo Moses intelligit legem quam Dominus voce sua promulgavit audiente universo populo suo ita ut nullam ignorantiam possit â—raetexere eum ejus tabulas baberet descriptas tanquam adeo singuli ex re citare possent intus haberent quasi in cognitioâ—e animo insculptam sed quod Moses dixit de lege hoc totum Paulus ad Evangelium acommodat per allusionem Pisc Analys alludit Apostolus ad verba Mosis Deut. 30.12 Diodati Annot. on Rom. 10.6 speaketh on this wise S. Paul makes use of this passage though spoken in another sense The like to which he doth in the same Chapter v. 18. alledging the words Psalm 19.4 concerning the preaching the Gospel in all the world which is undeniably meant of the course of the heavens Nor is it of force to overthrow this exposition to say that the word Deut. 30.14 is said to be in their heart for to be in their heart is there no more than to be understood by them though they were â—isobedient and might be true of the law â—s wel as the Gospel Noâ— is it any disparagement to the holy writings to say that sometimes holy writers accommodate to their purpose words that have oâ—her meaning in the places where they stand Whence I infer that the words v. â—1 he Commandement which I command thee this day do not prove that thereby is meant the very Gospel-Covenant ratified in Christ but the Commandment given in Horeb Deut. 29.1 nor is there any shew of likelihood that the words Deut. 30.11 12 13 14. should be meant of the promise v. 6. of circumcising the heart of their seed for that was not to be done by them but God And though it be true that Moses had that day propounded the Commandments as a mutual Covenant betwixt them and God as wel as God and them the parents or rulers stipulating therein in behalf of themselves and Chidren or rather in the behalfe of the whole nation in present being and unborn posterity and so in reference to them also a conditional covenant that day in the plains of Moab Deut. 29.1.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 29 and 30.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14. yet the covenant was on their part to keep the commandments of the Law for their prosperity Deut. 29.9 not to believe in Christ which few of them understood And when it is said Deut. 29.13 that it was that God might establish them that day for a people to himself and that he might be unto them a God it is not meant that they should be
all believers and God to them a justifying and saving God in Christ Mr. B's words in his Friendly accommodation pag. 361. And for that which you urge Ero Deus tui seminis I doubt you will not prove that it reacheth so far as you speak It sufficeth that God will be to them a God of mercy and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum and Mr. C's own exposition I will be a God to some in respect of external interest shew that to be a God to some doth not necessarily infer they shall be regenerate and so the covenant of saving grace in Christ be gathered thence And therefore I deny that Deut. 30.6.11 12 13 14. compared wiâ—h Rom. 10 6 7 8. do evidently or obscurely prove that the Covenant-interest external as he cals it of inchurched stipulating parents children is Gospel or that the Apostles preached this doctrine or that believers are to eye the covenant in such a latitude as to their children with them by faith or that the essentials of the Covenant of grace in the latitude of the extent thereof to covenant parents with their children held forth in the old Testament was delivered and held forth as valid to the faith of the Saints in the new and after Christs incarnation Nor doth Peter propound the word of true faith in such a latitude as with reference to their children in Mr. C's sence Acts. 2.38 39. And though Paul hold forth Rom. 5.14 15. the abounding of Christs grace to them that are Christs in the gift of righteousness yet that any such thing as external Ecclesiastical covenant interest to the natural seed of believers is held forth Rom. 5.14 15. is Mr. C's palpable dotage And how Acts. 2.38 39. Rom. 11.16 17 18 19. 1 Cor. 7 14. are mistaken is shewed in the first part of this Review and in this third part But Mr. C. faâ—ls to disputing thus That which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace that is Gospel but this is of that in nature ergo The major needs no proof the former text also clearing the same the major de jure is evident they ought to believe the whole Covenant made with them as is evident faith must be as large as the object the Covenant is the word of faith And so he proceedes in more words Whereunto I answer I grant his major but Mr. C. seems not to heed his own Syllogism For he tels us the minor de jure is evident they ought to believe and by which words he seems to have concieved that this was the minor that they ought to believe the whâ—le Covenant whereas his minor to be proved was this the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of inchurched believers is that which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace But Mr. C. as a man weary of disputing fals to his dictating way again after his confused manner leaving his reader to aim at what he would prove and how That which he should prove is that the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of inchurched believers is that which believers as such have do and ought to believe as a branch of the covenant of grace surely if they ought to believe it he should produce some promise or declaration that avowes it as a constant and certain thing But instead thereof he fals to Gen. 17.7 and tels us God in making a Covenant in a Church reference especially as was that with Abraham Gen. 17.7 he taketh in their seed or children as joint covenanters but what he means by Gods making a covenant in a Church reference or in which words he takes believers seed as joint covenanters with their parents or in which words the external Ecclesiastical interest of every believers natural child may be proved he shews not nor can shew there being no mans seed but Abrahams there mentioned He goes on thus Hence the phrase of seed in their generations taking in parents generating and children begotten as those in and by whom Churches are like to be continued Answ. It is true it is said Gen. 17.9 to Abraham thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations and this Covenant is v. 10. every man-child among you shal be circumcised But that this phrase seed after Abraham in their generations should infer that God taketh in believeng parents generating and children begotten even of the Gentiles in the Covenant of grace at least in respect of external ecclesiastical interest is yet to me a riddle I know no more to be inferred thence but this that not only Abraham but also the Israelites his posterity were bound to circumcise their males in their generations But we have more of this stuffe Whence saith he God when to speak in reference to the Church-seed as well as to the choise elect-seed of Isaac's line in which the visible and not meerly the invisible Church was to be continued he saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not with Ishmael Ishmael was Abrahams seed too and therefore externally in the Covenant and therefore sealed but God knowing that Ishmael would reject this he warneth Abraham of it a little before that it might not trouble him afterwards It is not to be with him in his generations for that cause Gen. 17.8 compared with Gen. 21.9 10 11 12 13. but with Isaac in his generations God not opposing therein Isaac to his Church-seed who by rejecting the Covenant will and did love he and his to be cast out Answ. Mr. C. in this passage speaks so obscurely that it is hard to say what he drives at and I may take up the saying reed me a riddle what 's this He makes a difference between Gods speech of Ishmael and Isaac that God saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not wiâ—h Ishmael it was not to be with him in his generations who was to be cast out all which I grant true and thence infer that God never made his Covenant with to or for Ishmael and yet he was to be circumcised and therefore the initial seal as it is called was given to him to whom the Covenant belonged not But Mr. C. using this blind index whence leaves us to ghess what he drives at whence importes it is from somewhat before that God said this of Ishmael but that before was that God takes in parents generating and children begotten But me thinks it is from the contrary as the Apostle conceived Rom. 9.6 7 8 9. that God speaks this of Ishmael who was Abrahams seed and yet not taken into the Covenant who yet should be taken in if yet Mr. C's principles were good that the Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed in their generations And how Mr. C. reckons Ishmaels as not Abrahams Church-seed I know not nor do I understand how
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
that this Gospel of Infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest was held in the beginning of the world Gen. 3.15 that I rather conceive that it is no elder than Mr C. and am sure is a meer figment But there is more of this Rubbish to be removed He tells us The same Doctrine is implicitly held forth Gen. 9 in the opposition of the servile condition of Canaan v. 25 26. to the future Church state of Japhet v. 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude so that Chams Babes as soon as born were to be slaves but Japhet parent child are prophetically voted to Church-estate in Sems tents so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems Tents so soon as born As God would accurse collective Canaan Noah prophesieth that God would enlarge or cause collective Japhet to turn into the tents of Sem which Interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church Now visible Church-estate supposeth visible Covenant-estate as is evident Answ. If Mr. C. may be allowed to make Gospel of Doctrine so implicitely held forth as his new Gospel is here I see not why we should so much blame as we do Popes for making new Articles of Faith out of places clearer for their purpose than this is for Mr. C's The servil condition of Canaan is refered generally by Interpreters to the bondage they were in when Joshua subdued them and the Gibeonites were made slaves which though it did extend to their Children yet was not such but that even they were Proselytes many of them to Israel as Araunah the Jebusite and after the woman of Canaan is commended for her Faâ—â—h Matth. 15.28 and therefore not excluded from the visible Church And for the blessing of Japhet whether we read it God shall enlarge Japhet as some or perswade Japhet as others I see not how it is well cleared that the accomplishment of it is in the Calling of the Gentiles descended from Jaâ—het as the Greeks and others into the visible Church because it is said that Canaan should be servant to Japhet whereas the Tyrians and Sidonians and Carthaginians and others descended of Canaan were in the visible Church as well if not as soon as many of the Posterity of Japhet as is apparent by the Histories of the Church mentioning Bishops and Synods held among them and famous Writers And therefore for my part I encline to think it a Prophecy of the Civil condition rather than Ecclesiastical whether it were fulfilled in Alexander the great and the Greek Kings of Asia after him subduing Tyre and Sidon and possessing Palaestina of which Judaea was a part or of the Romans subduing Carthage and possâ—ssiâ—g Judaea But â—e it taken as a Prophecy of the Ecclesiastick state of these people with what Argument will Mr. C. prove That the dwelling in the Tents of Sem is refered rather to the visible than the invisible Church They who will have it accomplished when the Gentiles were fellow-heirs of the same body and partakers of Gods promise in Christ by the Gospel Ephes. 3 6. or when the Gentiles were grafted in the stead of the Jewes Rom. 11.17 have more reason to understand it only of true believers converted by the Gospel and so of the invisible Church than to understand it of the visible Church as visible as I have shewed in the first part of this Review yet were it meant of the visible Church there is no Argument to prove it meant of the Babes of Japhet as soon as they are born For what though it be that Canaan and Sem and Japhet â—e all collectively taken yet Mr. C. himself pag. 161. hath taught us That Speeches of the whole Body of the Jewes collectively taken are true in respect of the choice or refuse part and so may or rather must be the speeches here necessarily understood Canaan collective neither comprehending every Canaanite in their greatest servitude nor collective Sem or Japhet comprehending every Israelite or descendent from Japhet but a notable part And if those of Japhet that dwelt in the Tents of Sem that is according to the Exposition of Mr. C. were of the visible Church were brought in by perswasion and this perswasion was by the Preaching of the Gospel according to the opinion of many Interpreters the Argument is forcible to the contrary that Babes are not here meant among the Inhabitants in the Tents of Sem Ecclesiastically expounded but only such as could hear and understand and were perswaded by the Gospel to joyn themselves to the visible Church of Christ. After this Mr. C. dictates out of Gal. 4.23 24. Gen. 21.10 That even as Ishmael and hiâ— were cast out of Abrahams family and the legal Jerusalem and her Children even the body of the Jewes adult and infant were dis-churched so Ecclesiastical Isaac Abrahams Church-seed with their Children should be instated in the visible politiâ—al Gospel-Church But the Apostle doth not speak of â—asting out of the visible Church as such but out of the Inheritance of Sons that is justification and salvation and Jerusalem that now is and her Children is not Jâ—ws as Jewes or the body of Iewes or adult and infants as Mr. C. speaks for then many Myriads of Jewes believing should be cast out But Ierusalem that now is notes the legal Covenant and her children not Infants born at the City Ierusalem buâ— so many whether of Jews or Gentiles as sought righteousness by the Law and not by Christ as Hagar signifies the legal Covenant her Son Ishmael such as were born of the flesh that is trusted in the flesh as the Apostle speaks Phil 3.3 that is in their legal righteousness and carnal privileges And on the other side Sarah and Ierusalem above signifie the gospel-Gospel-Covenant vers 24 25. which begets Children by Promise that is â—â—cording to the Doctrine of Faiâ—h in Christ typified by Isaac and these that believe are born after the Spirit and do inherit life righteousness salvation There 's not a word of Abrahams Church-seed there or any where else in Mr. C. his sense and Ecclesiastick Isaac is a new Notion and a meer figment of Mr. C. in his sense and the casting out is meant of the invisible Church of the saved such as do rejâ—ct Christ and adhere to the Law and the taking in is meant of the taking into the invisible Church of the justified and saved them that believe in Christ or aâ—e united to him and not of an in-Churching of meer visible Professors Parenâ—s and Children into the visible Church by an outward riâ—e The three Texts next alleged by Mr. C. are all misâ—alleged to prove an external Covenant Church Interest of the Infants of in-Churched-believers to wit Esay 65.20 the impertinency of which to this end is shewed in the Second Part of this Review Sect. 11. the impertinency of Isa. 61.9 and Ezek 37.27 in this Part of the Review before Mr. C. proceeds to a Third Argument In answer
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
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
made as Turks or Indians so far forth in regard that not being in covenant nor Church-estate the Apostle truly states such persons cases they are without hope and without God in the world He maketh no distinction of potentia remota and propinqua in that case Answ. It is a grievance to us their brethren in the faith that Mr M. and such men of name and worth in the Church should so misrepresent our Tenet as they do with whom Mr C. seems to concur Mr. M. his calumny in misrepresenting my words in his Defence part 2. sect 10. as if I had said That I know no warrant to think election to reach believers children more than unbelievers children that I know no more promise for them than for the children of unbelievers is answered in my Apologie sect 14. I have shewed here and in my Examen Part 2 Sect. 10. and in my Apologie Sect. 14. that I put the elect of them into the covenant of grace and in the invisible Church and this onely is the ground of a sure hope of their interest in God and Christ and salvation And that they are elect I give 4 probable reasons which are not competent to the infants of Turks and Pagans 1. generall indefinite promises not made to Turkes and Pagans 2. The payers of parents and godly for them 3. Their education and breeding among the godly whereby they are in a neerer possibility to be godly than others 4. The â—requent experience that the children of the godly prove such which yet because those promises are not particular and definite that is determining this particular goâ—d of salvation to each particular person prayers are made and heard with limitation of Gods will the education may faâ—l in its effect and experience is not so constant but that it falls out otherwise in many therfore there 's no sufficient ground for certain hope but only probable Mr M. Mr C. and others assign â— more to wit being in Covenant Church-estate But Mr C. pag. 93. confesseth It is peculiar to the elect to be in covenant in respect of the saving effiâ—acy of it Rom. 9.6 7 8. And that being in covenant and Church-estate which he makes common to all elect and reprobate cannot assure them certainly of salvation therefore were it granted that there were such a covenant of Church-privileges and that they were visible Church-mâ—â—bers and to be baptized which I conceive to be fictitious yet this câ—uld 〈◊〉 mâ—ke the hâ—pe of their salvation more than probable no noâ—â—o probable as the reasons I give where I infer that they do us wrong to instil into peoples 〈◊〉 thaâ— which tends to make us odious that our doctrin takes awâ—y all 〈…〉 hope of infants salvation dying in infancy wheÌ„ in truth the promise of salvation as we assign it is the same wthâ—he promise as they assign it the grounds we give of the hope of the infants interest are as sufficient to make it probable as thâ—iâ—s â—f they were supposed true which yet notwithstanding all they say we know aâ—e fictitious Now hereby is a plain answer to Mr. C. If Infants of Turâ—s be any of them elected which Mr. C. seems to grant when he saith God may and sometimes doth and will have some souls brought on to him from Rome and even amongst the Mohometans c. We do grant they are really and before God in as good a condition as believers children though not in appearance to us and in respect of their present estate nor can they be said to be without Christ without God in the world in all respects But in respect of present state and appearance to us neither Infidels nor their children are in any condiâ—ion so hopefull as believers and their children because of the generall indefinite promises they have the benefit of prayers which are not with a like aâ—dency for Infidels though we pray for them also in a more generall manner the benefit of their education which if it be to Indians children yet not with a like care And if it be we should not think it absurd to say that if they be brought into godly families their salvaâ—ion is hopefull as well as believers children Else why doth Mr Cotton conceive in the way of the Churches of New England in the latter end they may be baptized And the experience is very frequent concerning godly mens children proving godly but very rare that an Infidels child living among Infidels is converted And for a word of promise for faith and hope to rest upon as I said it hath been shewed that neither Mr M. nor Mr C. nor any other can produce any promise in Scripture that assures the salvation of an Infant of a reall believer much lesse of a meer professor dying in infancy yea to retort Mr C. his Argument we are not to sorrow without hope concerning our brethren that dye at age yet we have no certain word of faith to relye on but that Go â— will be the God of elect and true believers Luke 20.36 37 38. But thaâ— this promise reacheth to our brother deceased at age we know onely probably though the probability is greater by reason of his profession and conversation yet at most but probable notwithstanding those signes we are not certain he is elect he may live and dye an hypocrite Many are canonized for Saints in â—eaven who perhaps are among unclean spirits in hell We therefore in this case are fain to suspend our judgment about the certainty and to content our selves with a likely hope upon probable grounds And so we may do concerning our children according to my doctrine though I confesse the hope is more probable of such a one than of an infant yet sometimes also there appears as much cause of â—ear How ever this I say that were it not to make our doctrine of Antipaedobapâ—ism odious to parents who being indulgent to their children are easily moved to passion towards them thâ—t say any thing of them that seems harsh and are very much inclined to them and their words that tend to feed â—hem with such conceits as occasion their hopes though but fond of good to them our doctrine would be free from this exception But such courses should be far from men of worth who should present truth nakedly without respect to mens affections As Mr C. tells us he hath been the longer in proof of this seventh Conclusion in that it is the very Hinge of the Controversie So I have answered it more fully though it have been very tedious to me by reason of Mr. C. his confused and impertinent Dictates And I do declare that I do not see reason from that which Mr. C. hath said to unsay what I said that the children of believers covenant-estate at least Ecclsiasticall as asserted by Paedobaptists is a new Gospel not elder than Zuinglius and therefore rejecting it I shall hold that to be Gospel which I find so called 1 Cor
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
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
judged impostors 2. It is no marvel that the 3d. Section of the 3d. Part of my Examen is irksome to Mr. Bl. to read sith it doth so fully lay open the fallacy of Paedobapâ—ists in their speeches concerning the â—nfants of beleevers being in Covenant Not did I set down the position I conceived Mr. Ms. 2d concl any otherwise then in fair candid way giving my reasons thereof and not as Mr. Bl. faith per force imposing any thing on him And for Mr. M. it is shewed above § 30. that Mr. M. in his Defence hath rather hiddâ—n then explained the mâ—aning of his 2d Conclusion As for M. Bl. did acknowledge Exam. p. 46. that he spake most warily and therefore was far from obtruding upon him But yet Mr. Bl. for want of other exceptions against me chargeth me with wronging him in a passagâ— in my Apology pag. 156. where I say How doth this stand with thaâ— which he asserts ch 3. sect 2. of his answer to my Letter pag. 13. That infants of beleevers have salvation if they die in their infancy by verâ—ue of the Covenant These words he saith were none of his and that I could not but know it when I published them and that the meaning was not his I knew also seeing he exâ—ressed it in these words That they are in the ordinary way of Gods dispensation saveable â—o wâ—ich I reply The assertioâ— I coâ—ceived his I gathered from those words in the place cited by me That Scrirture therefore 1 Cor. 7.14 in this controversie is still brought in by our Divines as evidently holding out a Covenant holiness and consequently salvation of infants And truly I must confess I thought his words so plain that I never dream't he would have denied it to be his meaning conceiving he alledged the Protestant Divines as conâ—onant to his own opinion and that if salvation of Infants be inferred consequently from covenant holiness which Mr. Bl. asserts from 1 Cor. 7.14 then it is Mr. Bls. meaning that infants of beleevers have salvation in their infancy if they die in their infancy by vertue of the Covenant and that he asserts a certainty of salvation from the Covenant That which he saith I knew that the meaning I impute to him was not his because of the words he sets down and therefore a calumny tending to make a brother odious is I am sure false and a calumny which I never expect to have fairly answered by him nor almost any thing else he is charged with by me to have dealt fouly in his opposing â—e about this point The words he mentions were in the period before thâ—s This Papists deny as not knowing how to avoid the salvation of infants but that they are in the ordinary way of Gods dispensation saveable when they are thus admitted within the verge of Gods promise Which being spoken of the Papists I did not conceive so likely to explain the speech of the period following as that other a little before Protestants affirm that infants without actual admission to Baptism are saved The main argument wherewith Protestants assert it is the Covenant in which with the parents infants are included and I conceived are saved is as much as are actually saved Nor am I yet so well indoctrinated by Mr. Bl. as not to think it had been non-sense which I would not impute to Mr. Bl. to expound salvation of infants by saveabâ—eness in the ordinary way of Gods dispensation Nor did I Imagine that by Mâ— Bl. mucâ— less by Protestant Divines a saveableness onely in Gods ordinary way of dispensation should be made the consequent of Covenant holiness but a certainty of salvation For the Covenant or prumise doâ—h not assure onely â— possibility but a certainty yea possibilities are not the things which men ever assure they are antecedent to Covenants and promises but certain events anâ— to imagine Gods Covenant to assure onely a possibility a saveableness and not a certainty of salvation is to make God to promisâ— nothing bâ—t what is without such a Covenant which is to make it a blank And if the Covenant holiness infer onely a conditional salvation it infers no more salvation then damnation yea if infants have no more by their Covenant holiness then a saveableness in Gods ordinary way of dispensation then they have onely a saveableness if they be baptized hear thâ— Gospel preached beleeve it profess it which is the ordinary way whereby God dispenseth salvation But if this were Mr. Bls. meaning he haâ— made Baptism c. a necessary condition of their salvation and so he had tied their salvation with the Papists to Baptism or rather been more rigid then they durior pater infantum Augustino requiring the hearing the word actual faith and profession of them to salvation So that I hope by this time Mr. Bl. will forgive me this wrong in setting down his opinion better then he meant it and that he will let faâ—l hiâ— suit against me for this thing And if so I will forgive him for his next insinuation of my setting up a man of straw and then beating it down though it be indeed the common saying of Paedobapâ—ists who usually say the Covenant of grace sealed by Baptism which is that of justification is made to beleevers and their seed the promise is to them and their children Aâ—â—s 2.39 which is meant by them of remission of sins and for his frivolous charge of my using the arguments of Jesuits and making use of Protestants names when I do bring not onely the names but the very words and arguments of the most approved Protestant writers in great number and produce one Papist Estius alone no Jesuite but though a Papist of the better sort and do and may safely protest that some of those Mr. Bl. chargeth me with I did not read and for one what I read in him came not into my mind when I wrote that Examen of Mr. Ms. sermon So that what Mr. Bl. doth so often insinuate as tending to make me suspected as if my arguments against Infant Baptism were borrowed from Papists even then when I avouch Protestants is a most unworthy calumny though I still say I am glad when I find truth that I meet with iâ— in any Authors whether Protestants or Papists and think it not the worse for their owning it Mr. Bl aâ—ter his false accusations of me and limitations of his own tenet speaks thus To draw all up towards a conclusion All that is necessarilâ— included in Gods entrance of Covenant with a people engaging to be their God and taking them for his people is here by this grand Charter of Heaven made over to Abraham and his natural issue by â—saac and Jacob. All their posteriâ—y are branches of this root by nature simply considered and they are holy branches by vertue of this Covenant which necessarily implies priviledges of Ordinances the fruition of Gods Oracles which are his Covenant draughts without which no people are in
to the terms of that Covenant their God There is not a place where God calls them by the name of his people which are almost endless but there we have this confirmed tâ—at that people were the Lords by vertue of this grant made to Abraham and his seed Answ. This last speech might be granted and what else Mr. Bl. infers from the Text yet he attains not his end unless he prove that by vertue of that Covenant all the Israelits by natural discent weâ—e Godâ— regenerate jâ—stified people for the thing he should prove against me is that Gen. 17.7 God promiseth to be a God in respect of Gospel benefits to all Abrahams natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. Yet I conceive there are places wherein the Israeliâ—es were termed Gods by vertue of the Covenant of the Law Ezek. 16 8. 20.5 c. without mentioning the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which the Apostle conceives differently of Gal. 3.16 17. And the speeâ—hes Exod. 20.2 Deut. 5.6 Exod. 5.1 Deut. 14.1 2. though spoken of the body of Israel yet may and are to be understood at least in some senses of them not of every individual Surely he was not God Evangelically to those that believed not nor were they his people nor legally so as to afford them that protection and temâ—oral blessings which are promised in the Laâ— Deut. 28. c. to Ahab Achan Korah and such like But in the Evangelical sense the denomination is from the better part the people he fore knew as the Apostle himself expounds it Rom. 11.2 5. and in respect of political blessings according to the Covenant of the Law to the obedient to the Law as of long life to dutifull children safety whiâ—e they kept the Solemn Feasts Exod. 20.12 24.24 Nor doth Amos 3.1 2. which he saith is full to his purpose say that God was a God to that whole family which he brought out of Aegypt by vertue of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 much less to every one of them Evangelically nor doth he say he had known them â—ll Evangelically but had known them onely that is had distinguished them from other people by giving them his Laws c. which makes nothing to prove according to Gen. 17.7 God took every descendent from Jacob into Covenant in respect of Gospel benefiâ—s In the 4th place saith he I argue from the practise of the people of God making this Covenant of God entred with Abraham and his seed a Plea to obtain mercy from God for all Israel the worst of Israâ—l in their lowest state and condition Deut. 9.26 27. If this Divinity had been thâ—n known Moses might have been sent away with this answer That he spake for dogs and not for children not for Israel but for Aliens and strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel But as this anâ— the like requests of the people of God were made in faith so they prevailed with God Moses there urgeth they are thy people and thine ineritance v. 39. as doth the Church Isa. 64.9 and Moses petition takes as the History shews Exod. 32.14 Yea when God vouchsafes mercy to his people thus in Covenant Levit. 26.42 it is upon this account of the Covenant And appearing for the deliverance of Israel out of their hard and pressing bondage he saith to Moseâ— Exod. 3.6 and that to stay up his faith in confidence of deliverance â—nsw Thaâ— which Mr. Bl. should prove is That Covenant exprest in those words Gen. 17.7 in their fullest latitude as they are spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. And in his answer to my Letter ch 10. pag. 55 56. he urgeth Exod. 32.13 Deut. 29.27 Levit 26.42 Exod. 3.6 to prove that Gen 17.7 was a promise of grace and mercy to Jacobs posterity such as of which Circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11 which he saith is no other then a Covenant of grace and saith Circumcision did seal that Covenant to be the God of believers and their seed Gen 17.7 10. But not one of the petitions or speeches alledged do prove either the former or this last assertion The petition of Moses Exod. 32.13 was upon occasion of the making of the golden Calf Gods speech to Moses concerning the consuming of them for it and making Moses a great Nation Moses to divert God from this thing alledgeth 1. That they were his people which he brought out of Aegypt with great power and a mighty hand and if he should consume them the Aegyptians would reproach him as intending mischief to them when he brought them out of Aegypt Where it is true God calls the body of them his people But this must be understood if Evangelically in respect of the better part onely if Legally either de jure because they ought to have been his people being delivered from Aegypt and having engaged themselves Exod. 19.8 to obey God or de facto because he had done so great things for them and thereby owned them in respect of his actings for them above other people 2. He presseth God with his Oath to Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But the Oath he mentions is concerning the multiplying the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as the stars of heaven and giving the land of Canaan to them and that they shall inherit it for ever not a word of being God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical blessings nor a word tending to shew the extent of thâ— promise Gen. 17.7 in respect of gospel grace The same answer I give to his allegation of Deut. 9.26 27 28 29. And to Mr. Bls. flirt I answer this Divinity was then known to God and God might have sent away Moses with this answer That he spake for some who were dogs or reprobates and not children of God according to the election of grace which is the Apostles Divinity Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1 Cor. 10.5 Heb. 3.10 11 16 17 18 19. and that they were strangers from the Coâ—monwealth of Israel that is of the Israel of God Gal 6.16 And tâ—is is also the Apostles Divinity Rom. 9.6 and therefore I count this no absurâ—ity But I grant they even the worst of them were not dogs but children and of the Commonwealth of Israel political in respect of their outward state and in that respect holy and different from other people To the other I answer it is true Moses prayed in faith and was heard but there is no mention in the places alledged of his praying for spiritual Evangelical grace for every particular Israelite but for the preventing an utter destruction of them Nor doth he at all express any such faith whereby he believed God had promised to be a God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical benefits but that God would not destroy them in which respect he was heard And in like manner
his assent to his verbal profession But infants baptism is no profession of any faith either explicit or implicit there being no act done by them tending to make any shew of faith which they neither understand nor take â—o bee true upon the trust of their teachers as Papists do in their implicit faith which yet we dâ—ny to be christian faith but are every way passive both in respect of the act of the baptisers and the reason and end of it they neither do any thing towards their baptism nor understand any thing of it Yea were it true that such an implicit profession of faith were in infants baptism yet were it not enough to make them visible members of the christian church no not according to the definition of Protestant writers who when they define the church to be a company of professors of faith do mean more then an implicit profession to wit an intelligent and free profession and do blame the baptising of the Indians by the Spaniards forcing them to own the Christian Faith afore they understand it though there bee more implicite profession of the faith by them then is or can be by an infant 3. I argue They are no visible members of the christian church to whom no note whereby a visible christian church or church-membership is discernible doth agree For that which is visible is discernable to the understanding by some sensible note or signe by which it is known But to infants of believers no note whereby a visible church or church-member is discernable doth agree Ergo. The minor is proved 1 by shewing the right notes of the visible church and church-members not to agree to infants The right notes of the christian church and church-members are the profession of the whole Christian faith the preaching and hearing of the Word administration and communion in the Sacramenâ—s joyning in Prayer discipline c. with believers Hudson vindic pag. 229. But none of these agree to infants Not profession of of the whole Christian faith For they neither understand nor shew by any thing they do that they assent to the christian faith Not the preaching or hearing of the Word For infants can neither preach nor hear the Word I mean as it is speech or significative language though they may hear it as a sound much less as yeilding assent to it which hearing alone is a mark of a visible church-member Nor do they administer or have communion in the Sacraments None will say they administer nor though they should be baptised in water by a Minister or eat bread or drink wine at the Lords supper can it be said they have communion in the Sacrament For he onely hath communion in a Sacrament who useth it as a signe of that for which it is appointed and this use onely is a note of a visible church-member otherwise a Spaniards forcible baptising of an Indian without knowledge of Christ should make him partaker of the Sacrament or doing it in sport or jest should make a visible church-member See Mr. B. himself correct sect 6. pag. 253. But infants neither use baptism nor the Lords Supper as a signe engaging to Christ with acknowledgement or remembrance of him therefore they have no communion in the Sacraments no not in baptism nor is their pretended baptism any note of visible Church membership Nor do they joyn in prayer discipline or any part of Christian worship or service which might shew they own Christ as their Lord and therefore they are not discernable to be of the visible Church christian by any right note 2. By shewing that the notes whereby they are conceived to bee discernable as visible Church-members are not notes of their visible church-membership Two notes are usually alledged the one the covenant of God the other the parents profession of faith neither shew them visible Christian church-members nor both together Not the covenant or promise of God For there is no such covenant that promiseth to every believers childe much less to every professor of Faith's childe saving grace or visible church-membership and a promise to save indefinitely not expressing definitely who is not a note whereby by this or that person is discernable to be the person to whom it belongs Besides if there were such a promise to every childe of a believer yet unless it were a promise of it to them in their infancy it would not prove they were actually visible church members but onely that in the future they should be Nor is the parents Faith a note of the infants visible church membership For whether it be a note of it self or conjunctly with the covenant it is a note of the infants visible church-membership because it is his child and if so then it is a note of his child 's visible church-membership at twenty years of age though he should be then a professed Infidel as well as a day old a note of an Embryo's visible church-membership in the mothers womb as well as a childe born which are absurd Other reason then this I know not But sure I am there is not the least hint in Scripture of a childes being discernable to be a visible Christian church-member by the parents faith or profession but to the contrary To this argument briefly propounded in my Examen of his Sermon part 3 sect 3 Mr. M. replies not in his Defence and therefore I see not but it stands good 4. I argue They who have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member are not visible Christian church-members This proposition is most sure according to Logick rules take away the form the thing formed is not if the form denominating agree not the denomination agrees not Scheibler Top. c. 5. de forma Stieri praec doct Log tract 2. c. 4. But the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member infants have not Ergo. The minor is proved thus They which have not the outward profession of Faith within have not the form constituting and denominating a visible Christian church-member For profession of Faith is the form constituting and denominating a visible church-member as is proved from the constant sayings of Divines Ames Marrow of Divinity first book c. 31. § 11. Faith is the form of the Church § 25. visibility is the affection or manner of the Church according to its accidental and outward form § 27. The accidental form is visible because it is no other thing then the outward profession of inward faith which may easily be perceived by sense c. 32. § 7. It is a society of believers for that same thing in profession constitutes the visâ—ble Church which in its inward and real nature makes a mystical Church that is Faith Ball trial of separat c. 13. p. 302. A lively operative faith maketh a man a true member of the Church invisible and the profession of faith and holiness a member of the Church visible Norton answer to Apollon â— 1. prop. 2. pag. 10
of the Covenant of grace entred with our first parents presently upon the fall Pag 110. The seed of the faithful are Church members Disciples and subjects of Christ because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed Pag. 59 It is of the very law of nature to to have infants to be part of a Kingdome and therefore infants must bee part of Christs Kingdome Pag. 52. That infants must be Church members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith So that Mr. Bs. opinion is Christ by his law of nature or nations or covenant grant on the standing Gospel grounds of the covenant of grace the promise to the faithful and their seed not without actual faith formerly and present disposition beyond the meer bare profession of faith is properly the onely cause efficient of infants membership in the visible Church Christian. Against this I argue 1. If there be no such covenant of grace to the faithful and their seed nor any such promise upon condition of the parents actual faith the childe shall be a visible Christian churchmember nor any such law either of nature or nations or positive which makes the childe without his consent a visible Christian church-member then Mr. Bs. opinion of the cause of infants of believers visible Christian churchmembership is false But the antecedent is true ergo the consequent The minor I shall prove by answering all Mr. B. hath brought for it in that which followes 2. The Covenant of grace according to Mr. B. is either absolute or conditional the absolute according to Mr. B. is rather a prediction then a covenant and it is granted to be onely to the elect in his Appendix answer to the 8th and 9th object and elsewhere and by this covenant God promiseth faith to the person not visible churchmembership upon the faith of another The conditional covenant is of justification salvation on condition of faith and this pâ—omiseth not visible Churchmembership but saving graces it promiseth unto all upon condition and so belongs to all according to Mr. B. therefore by it visible churchmembership Christian is not conferred as a priviledge peculiar to believers infants on condition of their faith 3. If there were a covenant to the faithful and their seed to be their God yet this would not prove their infants Christian visible Church membership because God may be their God and yet they not be visible Churchmembers as he is the God of Abraham of infants dying in the womb of believers at the hour of death yâ—t they not now visible Churchmembers 2. The promise if it did infer visible Church membership yet being to the seed simply may be true of them though not in infancy and to the seed indefinitely may be true if any of them be visible Church members especially considering that it cannot be true of the seed universally and at all times it being certain that many are never visible Churchmembers as â—ll still-born infants of believers many that are visible Churchmembers for a time yet fall away and therefore if that promise were granâ—ed and the condition and law put yet infants might not be visible Christian Churchmembers 4. If all these which Mr. B. makes the cause or condition of infants visible Church membership may be in act and the effect not be then the cause which Mr. B. assignes is not sufficient But the antececedent is true For the promise the parents actual believing the law of nature of nations any particular precept of dedicating the childe to God the act of dedication as in Hannahs vow may be afore the childe is born and yet then the childe is no visible Church member Ergo. The consequence rests on that maxime in Logick That the cause being put the effect is put To this Mr. B. plain Script proof c. pag. 100. Moral causes and so remote causes might have all their being long before the effect so that when the effect was produced there should bee no alteration in the cause though yet it hath not produced the effect by the act of causing I reply this answer deserved a smile 1. For Mr. B. as his words shew before cited makes Christ by his law or covenant-gâ—ant the onely cause efficient therefore it is the next cause according to him and not onely a remote cause 2. If the covenant or law bee as much in being or acting and the parents faith and dedication afore the childe is born as after and there is no alteration in the cause though yet it have not produced the effect then it is made by M. B. a cause in act and consequently if the effect be not produced then it is not the cause or the adequate sufficient cause is not assigned by assigning it 3. Though moral causes may have their absolute being long before the effect yet not the relative being of causes for so they are together So though the covenant and law might be a covenant and law yet they are not the cause adequate and in act which Mr. B. makes them without the being of the effect nor is there in this any difference between moral and physical causes And for the instances of Mr. B. they are not to the purpose It is true election Christs death the covenant c. are causes of remission of sins imputation of righteousness salvation before these be but they are not the adequate causes in act For there must be a further act of God forgiving justifying delivering afore these are actually They are causes of the justificabâ—lity the certainty futurity of justification of themselves but not of actual justification without mans faith and Gods sentence which is the next cause A deed before one's born gives him title to an inheritance but not an actual estate without pleading entering upon it c. 4. I think Mr. B. is mistaken in making visible Churchmembership the effect of a moral or legal cause He imagines it to bee a right or priviledge by vertue of a grant or legal donation But in this he is mistaken confounding visible Church membership with the benefit or right consequent upon it Whereas the Churchmembership and it's visibility are states arising from a physical cause rather then a moral to wit the call whereby they are made Churchmembers and that act or signe what ever it be whereby they may appear to bee Churchmembers to the understanding of others by mediation of sense The priviledge or benefit consequent is by a law covenant or some donation legal or moral not the state it self of visible Churchmembership Which I further prove thus 5. If visible Churchmembership bee antecedent to the interest a person hath in the Covenant then the Covenant is not the cause of it for if the Covenant be the cause it is by the persons interest in it But visible Churchmembership is immediately upon the persons believing professed which is a condition of his being in
Covenant therefore it is before the Covenant and consequently the Covenant not the cause 6 If the Covenant or law upon condition of the parents faith as the antecedent or cause without which the thing is not be as Mr. B. saith the cause of infants visible Church membership the sole efficient then infants bought orphans of Turks c. wholly at our dispose are not visible Church members For they have no covenant made to their parents nor do their parents believe But by Mr. Bs. doctrine pag. 101. where he would have them baptised they are visible Churchmembers for such onely are to be baptised Ergo the Covenant is not the sole efficient there may bee visible Church membership without it The same may be said of foundlings persons of unknown progeny c. 7. If the Covenant or law with the parents actual faith without profession make not the parent a visible Churchmember neither doth it the childe For the childe who is by vertue of the parents being a visible Churchmember onely a visible Churchmember cannot be such without his being such But the parent by the law or covenant is not made upon his faith a visible Churchmember without profession Ergo The parents faith is not the condition on which God bestoweth the infant holiness nor is it true that the actual believing which hath the promise of personal blessings is the same that hath the promise of this priviledge to infants 8. If persons are visible Church members and not by the Covenant of grace then it is not true that Christ by his Law or Covenant of grace is the sole efficient of visible Churchmembership The consequence is plain and needs no further proof But the antecedent is true Ergo. The minor is proved by instances of Judas and other hypocrites who are visible Churchmembers but not by the Covenant of grace for that promiseth nothing to them 9. If infants be visible Churchmembers by the Covenant on the condition of the parents actual believing then either the next parents or any in any generations precedent If the next onely let it be shewed why the visible Churchmembership should be limited to it if in any near gâ—nerations let it be shewed where we must stick and go no further why suppose the visible Churchmembership be stopped at the Grandfathers faith so as that we must go no further in our count the great Grandfathers faith should not infer the infants visible Church-membership as well as the Grandfathers if there be no limit why this visible Churchmembership should not be common to all the infants of the Jews yea to â—ll the world If the succession be broken off upon the Jews unbelief why not upon the unbelief of each ancestor 10. If an infants visible Churchmembership be by the covenant upon the parents actual believing and not a meer bare profession then it is a thing that cannot be known because the parents actual believing is a thing unknown But that is absurd Ergo. The major I have confirmed more fully in the first part of this Review sect 35. 11. If other Christian priviledges be not conveyed by a covenant upon the parents faith without the persons own act or consent then neither this But the antecedent is true the child is not a believer a disciple a minister a son of God c. without his own consent Ergo. The consequence of the major is confirmed in that there is like reason for them as for this 12. If there be no Law or Ordinance of God unrepealed by which either this infant visible Christian Churchmembership is granted or the listing of infants or entring into the visible Church Christian is made a duty then that is not a cause of infants visible Churchmembership which Mr. B. assigns But there is no such Law or Ordinance unrepealed Ergo. If there be it is either by Precept or other Declaration but by neither Ergo. If by Precept in the New Testament or the Old Not in the New there is no Precept to Minister or parenâ—s or any other to take infants for visible Churchmembers or to list them as such Nor in the Old there is no such Precept I know but that of circumcision which is repealed vowing praying c. did neither then nor now of themselves make visible Churchmembers although upon the prayers and faith not onely of parents but of others God granted remission of sins conversion cure of plagues yet did not these make any visible Churchmembers of themselves If there be any other Declaration of God it is either a positive law or law of Nations or of Nature Not any positive law if there be let it be produced not any law of Nations This Mr. B. sometimes alledgeth that as it is in Kingdomes and civil States the children are subjects and citizens as well as the parents so in the Church But if this were a rule in the Church of God then not onely â—hildren must be visible Churchmembers but also all the inhabitants where the Church is servants and their children as all in the territories and dominions of a King are his subjects and sith Christs Kingdome is over all the world yea if Mr. Bs. Doctrine were right in his Sermon of Judgement pag. 14 15. All are bought by Christs death and are his own every man in the world should be a visible Churchmember Nor any law of Nature For though Mr. B. sometimes pleads this yet the vanity of it appears 1. In that since the fall of man the nature of man being corrupt the call and frame of the Church is altogether by grace and free counsel of God 2. Churches if they should be fashioned after the way or law of Nature where the husband is there the wife should be a visible Churchmember as well as where the paaent is a Churchmember there the child should be so too For the law of Nature makes them more nearly in one condition then father and child But that is false Ergo. 3. If the law of Nature should form Churchmembers then Churches should be by natural discent But that is false it is by calling as is above proved 4. Churches are by institution therefore not by the law of Nature This is proved from Mr. Bs. own hypothesis that they are made Churchmembers by grant covenant gift on condition 5. If they were by the law of Nature all Churches should be domestical not congregational or parochial for they are not by nature but by institution 6. If Churches should be by the law of Nature they should be formed by an invariable uniform way and model But they are not so they are called sometimes by Preachers sometimes immediately by God sometimes by authority sometimes they are national sometimes catholick sometimes under one form of service and discipline sometimes under another sometimes the son is the means of making the father a visible Churchmember sometimes the father the son sometimes the wife of the husband sometimes the husband of the wife by which the
promiseth the continuance of it Right being a moral or civil thing can be no way conveyed but by a moral or civil action A gift that was never given is a contradiction So that this part of our controversie is as easie as whether two and two be four Answ. Visible Churchmembership is not a right but a state of being as to be healthy strong rich c. which are not given by a civil moral action but by providence of God acting physically as the soveraign disposer of all It is certain that it is by Gods will as all things are but this will is no otherways signified then by the event as conversion and many other gifts of God are My meaning is though these things are by vertue of Gods will and are signified in the general by some Declaration of Gods purpose and order by which he acts which may bâ— called his Covenant yet in the particulars I mean for the persons time c. there is not any Covenant that assures these persons conversion or visible Churchmembership or that estates infants in either of those benefits as their right by vertue of Gods promise as the sole efficient of it upon that condition Mr. B. asserts that is the parents faith as I have proved before Sect. 52. I deny therefore that there is such a promise of God as conferred infants visible Churchmembership upon â—he parents faith And to Mr. Bs. argument I say that though it be easie to prove that visible Churchmembership is by Gods donation or grant yet to argue therefore it must be by a promise such as Mr. B. asserts follows not it being no good argument which is drawn affirmatively from the genus to the species it must be by Gods gift or grant ergo bâ— promise Yea according to Mr. B. here a promise confers onely a future right and therefore it doth not make actually visible Church-members without some further act and therefore not the promise or Covenant of God is the next adequate cause of it but some other act of God and consequently there is another possâ—ble yea manifest way without the promise of it upon condition of parents faith which Mr. B. asserts But Mr. B. saith 2. God hath expresly called that act a Covenant or promise by which he conveyeth this right which we shall more fully manifest anon when we come to it Answ. These aâ—e but words as will appear by that which followes The 2d Proposition saith Mr. B. to be proved is that there was a law or precept of God obâ—iging the parents to enter their children into Covenant and Churchmembership by accepting of his offer and re-engaging them to God And this is as obvious and easie as the former But first I shall in a word here also explain the terms The word law is sometimes taken more largely and unfitly as comprehending the very immanent acts or the nature of God considered without any sign to represent it to the creature So many call Gods nature or purposes the Eternal Law which indeed is no law nor can be fitly so called 2. It is taken properly for an authoritative determination de debito constituendo vel confirmando And so it comprehendeth all that may fitly be called a law Some define it Jussum maâ—estatis obliganâ— aut ad obedientiam aut ad paenam But this leaves out the praemiant part and some others So that of Grotius doth Est regula actionum moralium obligans ad id quod rectum est I acquiesce in the first or rather in this which is more full and exact A law is a sign of the Rectors will constituting or confirming right or dueness That it be a sign of the Rectors will de debito constituendo vel confirmando is the general nature of all laws Some quarrel at the word sign because it is logical and not political As if politicians should not speak logically as well as other men There is a two-fold due 1. What is due from us to God or any Rector and this is signified in the precept and prohibition or in the precept de agendo non agendo 2. What shall be due to us and this is signified by promises or the praemiant part of the law and by laws for distribution and determination of proprieties All benefits are given us by God in a double relation both as Rector and Benefactor or as Benefactor regens or as Rector benefaciens though among men that stand not in such a subordination to one another as we do to God they may be received from a meer benefactor without any regent interest therein The first laws do ever constitute the debitum or right afterward there may be renewed laws and precepts to urge men to obey the former or to do the same thing and the end of these is either fullier to acquaint the subject with the former or to revive the memory of them or to excite to the obedience of them And these do not properly constitute duty because it was constituted before but the nature and power of the act is the same with that which doth constitute it and therefore doth confirm the constitution and again oblige us to what we were obliged to before For obligations to one and the same duty may be mulâ—iplied 3. Some take the word law in so restrained a sence as to exclude verbal or particular precepts especially directed but to one or a few men and will onely call that a law which is witten or at least a well known custome obliging a whole society in a stated way These be the most eminent sort of laws but to say that the rest are no laws is vain and groundless against the true general definition of a law and justly rejected by the wisest politicians That which we are now to enquire after is a precept or the commanding part of a law which is a sign of Gods will obliging us to duty of which signs there are materially several sorts as 1. by a voice that 's evidently of God 2. by writing 3. by visible works or effects 4. by secret impresses as by inspiration which is a law onely to him that hath them Answ. Mr. B. undertook to explain the terms and he onely and that unnecessarily and tediously explains one term to wit law which was not the term in my Letter to which his Proposition was to be opposed but the word precept whereas he should have explained what he meant by the parents entring their children into Covenant and Churchmembership and what offer he meant they were to accept and how and how they were to engage them to God and how this entring accepting re-engaging did confer the benefit of visible Church-membership to their children and what precept it is that is unrepealed distinct from the precept of Circvmcision which I presume he doth not hold unrepealed All these were necessary to have been distinctly set down that I might have known his meaning and thereby have known whether his assertion
opposeth my position and whether he prove it or not But that the Reader may the better perceive where the point to be proved lies I shall set down distinctly what I conceive Mr. B. means and then what I assert and what Mr. B. should prove in opposition to my assertion 1. I conceive he imagines an offer of God to parents which he calls a promise or Covenant that upon their taking him to be their God he would be a God to their children even their infants 2. That parents are and were bound to accept of this offer for their children 3. That by it they do enter them into Covenant that is they do Covenant for them that they shall be Gods people and consequently they partake of the Covenant that God is their God 4. That by vertue of this entring into Covenant accepting and re-engaging them to God they are visible Churchmenbers I assert 1. There is no such offer promise or Covenant 2. That though there are precepts for parents to pray for their children to breed them up for God by example teaching c. yet they are not bound to believe this that upon their own faith God will take their infant children to be his and he will be a God to them nor to accept of this pretended offer sith there is no such promise or offer 3. That though parents may enter into Covenant for their children that is they may do it as those Deut. 29.12 either by charge and adjuration or by wishing a curse to them if they did not cleave to God as Nehem. 10.29 Josh. 6.25 and this may have an obligation on them beyond the precept and influence on them as a motive as the Oath to the Gibeonites Josh. 9.16 yet by this their entring into Covenant for them they do not make them partakers of the Covenant or promise that God wil be their God 4. That if there were such a promise and such a duty of accepting the pretended offer and re-engaging yet this neither did then nor doth now make infants visible Churchmembers So that the point between us is Whether there be such a precept to parents besides Circumcision of entring into Covenant accepting an offer of God to be their God for their children according to a promise that he will be so and re-engaging them to God whereby they become actually visible Churchmembers This Mr. B. affirms I deny He speaks thus Having thus opened the terms law and precept I prove the Proposition thus 1. If it was the duty of the Israelites to accept Gods offered mercy for their children to engage and devote them to him in Covenant then there was a law or precept which made this their duty and obliged them to it But it was a duty Ergo there was such a law or precept For the antecedent 1. If it were not a duty then it was either a sin or a neutral indifferent action But it was not a sin for 1. it was against no law 2. it is not reprehended nor was it indifferent for it was of a moral nature and ergo either good or evil yea sin or duty For properly permittere is no act of law though many say it is but a suspension of an act and so licitum is not moraliter bonum but onely non malum and ergo is not properly within the verge of morality 2. If there be a penalty and a most terrible penalty annexed for the non-performance then it was a duty But such a penalty was annexed as shall anon be particularly shewed even to be cut off from his people to be put to death c. If it oblige ad panam it did first oblige ad obedientiam For no law obligeth ad paenam but for disobedience which presupposeth an obligation to obedience 3. If it were not the Israelites duty to enter their children into Gods Covenant and Church then it would have been none of their sin to have omitted or refused so to do But it would have been their great and hainous sin to have omitted or refused it Ergo. Now to the consequence of the major There is no duty but what is made by some law or precept as it 's proper efficient cause or foundation Ergo if it be a duty there was certainly some law or precept that made it such Among men we say that a benefit obligeth to gratitude though there were no law But the meaning is if there were no humane law and that is because the law of God in nature requireth man to be just and thankfull If there were no law of God natural or positive that did constitute it or oblige us to it there could be no duty 1. There is no duty but what is made such by Gods signified will ergo no duty but what is made such by a law or precept For a precept is the sign of Gods will obliging to duty 2. Where there is no law there is no transgression Rom. 4.15 ergo where there is no law there is no duty for these are contraries it is a duty not to transgress the law and a transgression not to perform the duty which it requireth of us There is no apparent ground of exception but in case of Covenants Whether a man may not oblige himself to a duty meerly by his consent I answer 1. He may oblige himself to an act which he must perform or else prove unfaithfull and dishonest but his own obligation makes it not strictly a duty ergo when God makes a Covenant with man he is as it were obliged in point of fidelity but not of duty 2. He that obligeth himself to an act by promise doth occasion an obligation to duty from God because God hath obliged men to keep their promises 3. So far as a man may be said to be his own ruler so far may he be said to oblige himself to duty that is duty to himself though the act be for the benefit of another but then he may as fitly be said to make a law to himself or command himself so that still the duty such as it is hath an answerable command So that I may well conclude that there is a law because there is a duty For nothing but a law could cause that duty nor make that omission of it a sin Where there is no law sin is not imputed Rom. 5.13 But the omission of entring infanâ—s into Covenant with God before Christs incarnation would have been a sin imputed ergo there was a law commanding it 2. If it was a duty to dedicate infants to God or enter them into Covenant with him then either by Gods will or without it certainly not without it If by Gods will then either by his will revealed or unrevealed His unrevealed will cannot oblige for there wants promulgation which is necessary to obligation And no man can be bound to know Gods unrevealed will unless remotely as it may be long of himself that it is not to him revealed If it be Gods
way or other And though a special mercy may be given on a common ground or reason yet where there is no apparent proof of the restriction we are to judge the blessing common where the reason is common At least if a special blessing be superadded to Abrahams seed upon the freeness of Gods grace or the eminency of Abrahams obedience yet there goes with it a mercy common to all where the reason of the mercy is found It being therefore the case of every true believer to be faithfull and obedient yea to prefer that before his own life and not a son onely it may be hence gathered that God who blessed Abrahams seed on that account will bless theirs on the same with the same blessings in the main as to his favour and acceptance of them though not with the same in the variable superadditionals or overplus of external things Answ. Mr. B. like another Procrustes though in vain would fain rack the Texts Gen 22.16 17 18. 26.3 4 5. to his purpose Though I deny not but a common mercy may be granted on a special reasâ—n and a special mercy on a common reason God being a free agent yet in this business the reason of Abrahams mercy and the mercy it self are both so special and proper that it is extream violence to the Texts to apply Abrahams singular obedience in offering his son so signally eminent Heb 11.17 Jam. 2.21 to every believers obedience and the blessing granted to his seed that it should be as the stars of heaven as the sand on the sea shore that in it all nations should bless themselves or be blessed to every believers natural seed and their visible Churchmembership This kind of arguing is too ridiculous to deserve a serious refutation Yet he hath not done In Exod. 12.48 saith he there is a law for the circumcising of all the males of strangers that sojourn in the land that will keep the passover which comprehendeth their Churchmembership as is shewed Answ. I grant there is but not a law unrepealed SECT LXI Covenants promises and speeches in the Old Testament of Israel the righteous prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed THe promise saith Mr. B. to the whole people of Israel infants and all that they should be a peculiar people a Kingdome of Priests and a holy Nation Exod. 19.5 6. you cannot deny This is a promise and not a transeunt fact which made no promise And the people are called to keep Gods Covenant that they might have this promise fulfilled to them Yea if you had said that it was a meer transeunt Covenant or promise reaching but to the persons then existent and dying with them though you had spoken more sence yet no more truth then when you denied the law and promise and substituted a transeunt fact For 1. it is expresly a promise de futuro to a nation 2. Yea and the Apostle Peter giveth the same titles to believers under the Gospel intimating the fulfilling of the promise even to them as the promise to Abraham was to the faithfull who were his uncircumcised seed However here is a Covenant granting by way of confirmation the blessing of Churchmembership to infants with the rest of Israel For certainly this peculiarity and holiness and priesthood here mentioned containeth their Churchmembership It is undeniable therefore that such Churchmembership is here granted by promise or Covenant not as a thing then beginning but by way of confirmation of the like former grants And it 's to be noted that though this promise is made to all Israel yet not to be fulfilled to any of them but on condition that they obey Gods voice and keep his Covenant ver 5. on which conditions also any other might have then enjoyed the same blessing and therefore so may do now Answ. I never denied promises to be to the whole people of Israel but deny that they were by a promise as the sole efficient cause Gods visible Church and their infants members The promise Exod. 19.5 6. presupposed their Churchmembership and promiseth continuance of it in an eminent manner The Israelites were Churchmembers without the condition of obedience before the Law was given yea Ahaz Manasseh c. were visible Churchmembers though they were Idolaters but they lost that peculiarity holiness priesthood upon their disobedience which was there promised and so did the people they lost the dominion temple priesthood Urim and Thummim and other priviledges which are meant thereby and should have been continued if they had not broken Gods Covenant by Idolatry Yet no other nation could have had that state though they had been obedient and kept the Laws God having given those laws peculiarly to that nation and confined that honour to that people till the Messiah came And though Peter 1 Pet. 2.5 9. apply these to believers yet not in the same manner as they are meant Exod. 19.5 6. nor is any infant now of a believer a visible Churchmember by vertue of that promise In Deut. 14.1 2. The infants saith Mr. B. with the rest are called the children of God and a holy and peculiar people to the Lord their God Answ. Be it so yet this is not ascribed to a promise or precept but to Gods choise of them And saith Mr. B. Deut. 26.17 18. the Covenant is expressed thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God and to walk in his ways and keep his statutes and his commandments and his judgements and to hearken to his voice And the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people as he hath promised thee c. and that thou mayest be an holy people c. Is here no promise when the promise is exprest and is here no Covenant where the mutual Covenant is described And I think you grant that infants are included Answ. There is a promise of God to them but that did not make their infants visible Churchmembers though I deny not their avouching the Lord for their God which was a transeunt fact did shew them to be visible Churchmembers nor do I any where deny that our Covenant or promise to God doth make us visible Churchmembers but Gods Covenant or promise to infants upon the parents faith as Mr. B. asserts Mr. B. adds So Deut. 28.4 9. where the promise to the nation is that if they hearken to Gods voice and observe his Commandements they shall be blessed in the fruit of their bodies and the Lord will establish them a holy people to himself as hee had sworn unto them Here is not only a Covenant and promise for the future but also an oath confirming it as annexed to the same before Is this establishing Covenant or promise but a transeunt fact or doth not this confirm their right to the benefit promised which was received before by the same means Answ. It doth but the benefit promised v. 4. is not infants visible Churchmembership but encrease health
strength such a blessing as they had in their cattel as well as their children as Psal. 127.3 4 5. 144.12 13 14 15. and many more places is expressed And v. 9. though their Churchmembership was established according to Gods Covenant and oath yet the establishing was not the Covenant oath or promise of God but a transeunt fact of providence in preserving teaching them continuing his worship among them and such like acts And saith Mr. B. Ezra 9.2 They are called the holy seed Answ. Not all the seed of Israel are called the holy seed but those onely who were legitimate that is begotten by lawfull marriage according to Moses law the rest were termed the mixed multitude Neh. 13.3 whom they separated from the rest Ezra 10.3 as being no Churchmembers that is part of the congregation of Israel according to the law Neh. 13.1 Deut. 23.3 7.3 Exod. 23.32 of which more is to be seen in the first Part of this Review sect 25. So that those Ezr. 9.2 are termed the holy seed not barely by Covenant upon the parents faith nor as all visible professors as Dr. Hammond in his Defence of Infant Baptism pag. 78. but as begotten by an â—sraelite on an allowed wife by the law of Moses Mr. B. proceeds Of that in Deut. 29. I have formerly spoke enough It is called a Covenant All Israel with their little ones did enter the Covenant and the oath with God and which he made to them It was a Covenant to establish them for a people to himself and that he may be to them a God as he had before said and sworn It is a Covenant made even with them that stood not there whether it be meant onely of the successive Israelites and then it 's not a transeunt Covenant or of all people whoever that will accept of the same terms and then it 's not proper to Israel It 's a Covenant not made to them as meer Israelites but as obedient to the Covenant terms and Covenant breaking would cut them off v. 19 20 21 23 25 26. Is not Churchmembership contained in God 's being their God and taking them for his people thus in Covenant Doth not the promise give them an established right in this blessing Is all this then no promise but a transeunt fact Answ. What hath been spoken of Deut. 29. by Mr. B. in the Dispute at Bewdley and in his Book of Baptism part 1. ch 14 17. and his Corrective sect 5. will be examined in that which follows For present 1. it is sufficient to shew the impertinency of this Text to prove that there the Covenant or promise of God upon condition of parents faith is the sole efficient of infants visible Churchmembership in that the Covenant being then put even with the children unborn v. 15. yea and the parents then believing yet the children unborn could not be then visible Churchmembers as Mr. B. himself grants of Baptism pag. 250. They that were not could not be members visible or invisible For the sole efficient cause being actually put as the Covenant and the parents believing are Deut. 29. even according to Mr. B. the effect must be in act but it is not so in the unborn therefore the Covenant and parents faith are not the sole efficient 2. The Oath or Covenant of God is a distinct act from his establishing them for a people unto himself and being a God to them which are the consequent upon it and are by transeunt acts consequent upon the Covenant So that though the Covenant give a right to a blessing yet it doth not make actually visible Churchmembers without some other transeunt fact consequent upon it The Covenant assures a future existence but suppposeth a present absence of the thing covenanted and consequently without a further act consequent on it makes not any in present being visible Church-members So that as yet I find no Text of Scripture setting down the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership by Gods promise upon parents faith or dedication commanded as the sole efficient unrepealed Lâ—t's view the rest Deut. 30.19 saith he there is a law and promise choose life that thou and thy seed may live This is the same Covenant which Asa caused the people to enter 2 Chron. 15. and if there had been no law for it there would have been no penalty and then he would not have made it death to withdraw It is the same Covenant which Josiah caused the people to enter 2 Kin. 23.2 3. 2 Chron. 34.31 32. Of Levit. 25.41 54 55. I have spoken elsewhere and of some other Texts Answ. 1. There is a law and promise Deut. 30 19. but not such as Mr. B. asserts as the sole efficient of infants visible Churchmembership The life there is not visible Churchmembership but a prosperous being in Canaan v. 20. And the distinction between thou and thy seed proves that Deut. 29.12 thou notes the Captains Elders Officers men of Israel v. 10. distinct from the little ones wives strangers v. 11. though represented by them and that my speech so much exagitated by Mr. B. of Baptism p. 57 249. was justifiable 2. The Covenants 2 Chron. 15. 34.31 32. 2 Kin. 23.2 3. of Asa and Josiah were Covenants of Israel to God there 's no mention of Gods promise or Covenant to them as then made and therefore it is not that whereby infants are made visible Churchmembers according to Mr. B. and so is impertinent to the point in hand 3. The futility of Mr. Bs. argument from Levit. 25.41 54 55. is shewed in the 2d part of this Review sect 14. It follows in Mr. B. The second Commandment Exod. 20.5 6. Deut. 5.9 10. I think is a law and containeth a promise or praemiant part wherein he promiseth to shew mercy to the generations or children of them that love him and keep his Commandments of which I have also spoken elsewhere to which I refer you I see no reason to doubt but here is a standing promise and discovery of Gods resolution concerning the children of all that love him whether Jews or Gentiles to whom this Commandment belongs nor to doubt whether this mercy imply Churchmembership And that this is fetcht from the very gracious nature of God I find in his proclaiming his Name to Moses Exod. 34.6 7. Answ. If this mercy here imply Churchmembership to the infants of them that love him to a thousand generations then it implies it to all the infants in the world which cannot be true without such limitations as take away the certainty of any infants Churchmembership existent But there is nothing to prove that this mercy must be Church-membership or that it must be to all the children of them that love God and are obedient or that it must be to them in infancy sith it may be true of other mercies as preservation provision c. to some onely sith the speech is indefinite in a matter not necessary and
without fear of forfeiting my Christianity And to Mr. Bs. proofs I answer Christ did come to make Jew believers children in some respect that is of their temporal enjoyments in Canaan miserable or under persecution and so in a worse condition and yet he is thereby no destroyer of mans happiness but a Saviour of them this worse condition working for their eternal good Nor is it any absurdity to say he that would not accuse the adulterous woman would leave out of his visible Church Christian all infants without accusation sith this leaving out was onely an act of Soveraignty as a Rector not of punitive justice as a Judge But the consequence is that which I denied before and now also and to his proof I give the same answer which he thus exagitates Can you imagine what shift is left against this plain truth I will tell you all that Mr. T. could say before many thousand witnesses I think and that is this He saith plainly That it is a better condition to infants to be out of the Church now then in it then Which â— thought a Christian could scarse have believed 1. Are all those glorious things spoken of the City of God and is it now better to be out of any Church then in it Answ. It is no shift but a plain truth which if there had been many more witnesses I should stiâ—l avouch as part of my faith and mee thinks if Mr. B. be a Chriâ—â—ian and not a Jew hee should believe it too For were not the Jews infanâ—s by their visible Churchmembership bound to be circumcised and to keep Moses Law was not thiâ— an heavie and intollerable yoke Iâ— it not a mercy to be freed from it What real Evangelical promise or blessing do infanâ—s of believing Jews now lose by not being Christian visible Churchmembers I challenge Mr. B. to shew me any one particular real Evangelical blessing which doth not aâ— well come to an infant of a believer unbaptizâ—d or non-admitted to visible Churchmembership as to the baptized or admitted or any true cause of discomfort to parents by my doctrine which is not by his own Dare he say that the promises of saviâ—g grace or protection or other blessings are not belonging to them because unbaptized not admitted visible Churchmembers If he dare not let him forbear to calumniate my doctrine as unchristian and tragically to represent it as cruel and uncomfortable to parents and so not like a solid disputant or judicious Divine cleer truth but like an Oratour raise passion without judgement and endâ—avour to make me and that which is a plain truth odious which course will at last redound to his shame if it do not pierce his conscieâ—ce I said not as Mr. Bs. question intimates that it is now better to be out of any Church then it but that it is a better condition to infants to bee out of the Church now then to be in it then meaning that nonvisible Churchmembership to infants now is a better condition then visible Churchmembership was to them then And for that passage that glorious things are spoken of the City of God to prove the contrary it is ridiculously alledged For that speech is meant of Jerusalem or Sion preferred before all the dwellings of Jacob Psal. 87.1 2 3. not of all the Jewish Church and to it may be well opposed that of the Apostle Gal. 4.25 Hierusalem which is now in bondage with her children which proves my position Mr. B. adds 2. Then the Gentiles Pagans infants now are happier then the Jews were then for the Pagans and their infants are out of the Church Answ. It follows not from my position which was of Christian believers infants with those promises and probabilities they have and from thence followes not that Pagans infants out of the Church without those promises and probabilities Christian believers infants have are happier then the Jews were then But saith he I were best to argue it a little further 3. If it be a better condition to be in that Covenant with God wherein he bindeth himself to be their God and taketh them to be his peculiar people then to be out of that Covenant then it is a better condition to be in the Church as it was then then to be out of that and this too But it is a better condition to be in the aforesaid Covenant with God then out of it Therefore it is better to be in the Church as then to be in neither The antecedent is undeniable The consequence is clear in these two conclusions 1. That the inchurched Jews were then all in such a Covenant with God This I proved Deut. 29.11 12. What Mr. T. vainly saith against the plain words of this Text you may see in the end 2. There is to those that are now out of the Church no such covenant assurance or mercy answerable If there be let some body shew it which I could never get Mr. T. to do Nay he seemeth to confess in his Sermon that infants now have no priviledge at all in stead of their churchmembership Answ. If the Covenant be meant as I have proved before sect 64. it is of the Covenant of the Law concerning setling them in Canaan if they kept the law of Moses then the antecedent is not undeniable but it is most true that the condition of believers and their children now with the exhibition of Christ the promises and probabilities they have of saving knowledge of Christ and salvation by him is betâ—er out of the aforesaid Covenant with God then in it But the consequence was also denied because Mr. B. means the Covenant of grace And if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace neither of his conclusions are true nor is the former proved from Deut. 29.11 12. For if it were true that all that did stand there before the Lord did enter into covenant yet they were not therefore in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Their entring into covenant was by their promise to obey God which they might do and yet not be in the covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God siâ—h Gods promise is not to them that enter into covenant but to them that keep it yea if it were that they were in that covenant yet that covenant did not put any into a happy condition but those that kept Gods laws it being made conditionally and so not all the inchurched Jews were in that covenant wherein God bindeth himself to be their God Yea if it were as Mr. B. would have it that the promise of being their God were meant of Evangelical grace yet according to his Doctrine it is upon condition of faith and so it is either universal to all in or out of the Church or to none but those who are believers who were not all the inchurched Jews Nor is the second conclusion true there is the same covenant of Evangelical grace made to infants who
spirit now the new Covenant promises righteousness forgiveness of all sins through faith in Christ with a promise of the spirit But these promises belong not to the Church as it is visible but as it contains the elect of which sort infants may be though they be not visible Churchmembers there 's not a word of promise that the visible Church shall consist of a whole nation of all sorts of people in a nation infants and elder much less shall consist of more sorts of people then were in the Jewish Church but of more ample mercies spiritual to the elect who were all of the invisible Church though not of the visible and among them infants abortives stil born chiâ—dren which could not be of the visible and therefore to speak truth parents have more comfort by this Covenant both for themselves and children in that it assures more ample grace and that to more then visible members under the New Testament The same answer is to be given to Heb. 7.22 though â—he word be not as Mr. B. here reads it author but surety The next text speaks of the abounding of grace by Christ beyond the evil of sin by Adams transgression nothing at all of the enlargement of the visible Church since Christs comming in respect of the sorts of members over that which the visible Church Jewish had Yea such a position as it hath not the least footing in the text so would it not stand with Mr. Bs. and other Paedobapâ—ists doctrine that the visible churchmembership is a priviledge of believers children but in respect of extent of persons it was better with the visible Church then sith it comprehended servaâ—ts and the bought children of strangers And for the last text to imagine that the love of Christ is every whit the less if infants be not visible churchmembers is such a conceit as I judge a meer dotage But there is more of it in that which follows Further saith Mr. B. I might prove it out of Ephes. 2.12 They that are out of the Church are said to be strangers to the Covenant and without hope and without God in the world in comparison with those within the Church O how little then do they apprehend that height and depth c. or know that love of Christ that passeth knowledge who think that Christ will unchurch all the infants of believers now that took them in so tenderly in the time of Moses How insensible do they appear to be of the glorious riches of the Gospel and the free abundant grace of Christ who have such unworthy thoughts of him as if he would put all our children out of his Church How little know they the difference between Christ and Moses that think they might then be churchmembers and not now And yet oh the blindness these men do this under pretence of magnifying the sperituality of the Gospel priviledges As if to he a member of Christs Church were a carnal thingâ— or as if the visible Church were not the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies Answ. The Apostle doth not say they that are out of the Church any more then they that are uncircumcised are without hope without God nor doth he speak comparatively but absolutely Nor doth he speak universally of all without the Church but particularly of the Ephesians nor of them as out of the Church universal but Jewish nor this as they were merely negatively or privatively out for want of not taking on them the yoke of Moses Law but as they walked after the course of the world v. 2 3. So that these things are not said of them barely as non-visible churchmembers then in the Jewish Church as infants are now in the Christian for then these things might have bin said of Cornelius and his house as well as of them who were uncircumcised not in the Commonwealth of Israel but as they were idolaters alienated from the life of God and so were neither members of the Church visible nor invisible of true believers at that time Therefore to charge us with making the estate of infants of believers by our doctrine as the estate of those mentioned Ephes. 2.12 is a meer calumny tending to nothing else but indirectly to create prejudice in men against the truth And of the same kinde is that which followes which insinuates as if by denying infants visible churchmembership we lessened Christs love were insensible of it and the glorious riches of the Gospel made Christ less tender now of infants of believers then in Moses time and had such unworthy thoughts of Christ as if he would put all our children out of his Church and knew not the difference between Christ and Moses all which are meer flams and frivolous false accusations fit to take with shallow Paedobaptists who are caught with flourishes of Rhetorick rather then solid reason And for that which hee censures as my blindness I may rather admire his in not discerning it For however to be a member of Christs Church may be more then a carnal thing yet to bee a visible Churchmember by natural discent without faith is but a carnal thing and in this respect the Church Jewish was more carnal then the Christian Church as the Scriptures intimate though they were the object and recipient of spiritual as well as common mercies The rest that follows is in the same calumniating vein for wee say as the Apostle Gal. 4.27 that is that the new Covenant or Gentile Church hath more children then the Jewish in that there were more believers in the world on the preaching of the Gospel as is said Revel 5.9 thâ—n in the national Church Jewish nor do wee as Mr. B. belies us make all or any of the children of the new Covenant or Gentile Church cast out for tâ—ey onely are those who are by promise born after the spirit that is true believers v. 28 29. and not as ignorantly and fondly Mr. B. imagines all the infant children of Gentile believers Nor do wee by our doctrine contradict the Apostles words Heb. 12.40 which are ridiculously applied to infants visible Churchmembership For the better thing provided for us in that which the believers afore Christ received not which is by some conceived to bee heaven but generally Protestant Divines understand it of the exhibition of Christ in the flesh and the clear knowledge of him which if true proves what I avâ—r that Christs exhibition in the flesh the gift of the spirit and the revelation of the Gospel and the taking in of the Gentiles are in stead of that visible Churchmembership the Jewes had and all the priviledges annexed However it cannot bee infants visible Church-membership as Mr. B. makes it for that they had as Mr. B. asserts and therefore the denying of it by me makes not us in so much worse a condition then they Nor do wee by denying infants visible Churchmembership aver the partition wall taken down Ephes. 2.14 by Christ to be in
it follows not the children born are not tenants or subjects actually because the unborn are not but it follows the lease and compact of themselves do not make actually tenants or subjects because if they did they would do so the unborn as well as the born so in this point though the arguing be not good the unborn are not actually visible churchmembers therefore the born are not yet this which was my arguing was good By the Covenant which was made with the unborn they were not actually visible churchmembers therefore by the same Covenant of it self without any other cause neither were the born infants actually visible churchmembers and consequently Mr. B. cannot from the making of this Covenant prove the Jewish infants actually visible churchmembers To my saying that an entring into Covenant by parents doth not make a visible member in the Christian Church however not as Mr. B prints it though it did in the Jewish he saith much in the compass of a few lines all which is answered before in several sections chiefly 50 51 52 57. But he saith 3. That this was a Covenant of grace is all the question To which I say though it be a question between us yet it is not all the question For both in the Dispute and in all my writings I denied that the Covenant of grace doth make visible churchmembers and therefore Mr. B. if he would have made good his argument he should have proved that visible churchmembership and the Covenant of grace are inseparably conjunct which Mr. B. failing to do fails in proving the chief point of his argument But let 's view what he saith Correct pag. 251. You add saith he this proves not the Covenant a pure Gospel-covenant not including peculiar benefits to the Jewish nation I answer if by pure you mean that it is not onely a Gospel covenant but that and more it yeeldeth as much as I need for if it be a Gospel covenant no matter though there be more But if you mean that it is not essentially a Covenant of grace I could heap up abundâ—nce of arguments against you you may find many in Mr. Baâ—â— of the Covenant I add That Covenant wherein God taketh them to be his people and engageth himself to be their God is a Covenant of grace for since the fall God entreth himself into no such Covenant with any but in Christ and upon terms of grace But such is this Covenant made with the Israelites and their little ones therefore this was a Covenant of grace Answ. I mean by pure Gospel Covenant that Gospel Covenant which was without mixture of domestick or political benefits proper to Abrahams seed inheriting which is set down Heb. 8.10 11 12. out of Jâ—r 31.33 and I say that though there is perhaps an Evangelical promise or two intermixed in the enlargement of Moses his discourse yet Deut. 29.13 14 15. the Oath or Covenant there made was noâ— purely Evangelical or essentially a Gospel Covenant but a political legal national Covenant such as God doth not enter into now with all those to whom he vouchsafes Gospel grace And I prove it thus 1. That Covenant which contains promises of the land of Canaan the inheritance of it and prosperity therein is not essentially a Gospel Covenant or a pure Gospel Covenant But so doth that Deut. 29.13 14 15. Ergo. The major is manifest For the Gospel Covenant doth noâ— promise those things The minor is plain from the words as he hath sworn unto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But that was a promise of Canaan as appears from Gen. 12.7 13.15 15.8 17.8 22.17 26.3 28.13 14. Deut. 34.5 and many passages in Moses his speech Deut. 29.16 21 23 24 27. Deut. 30.2 5 9 10 16.18 and most evidently the conclusion of it Deut. 30 20. 28.11 2. The Covenant and Oath made then was the same which was said to them before Deut. 29.13 But that was the Covenant of the law in Horeb Deut. 29.1 Now that was not essentially the Covenant of grace as is proved before sect 43. 3. That Oath and Covenant which was of being God to them upon condition of their obedience to his laws given by Moses that is not a pure Gospel covenant but a legal Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 But such is this Deut. 29.8 29. 30.2 8 10 11 14 16. where the judicial and â—eremonial are meant as well as the moral 4. That Oath and Covâ—nant which had the legal threatnings annexed to it was not a pure Gospel covenant or essentiâ—lly the Covenant of grace Gal. 3.10 Buâ— such was this as appears from Deut. 29.20 21 25. 30.18 19. Ergo. What Mr. Ball hath written to prove Mr. Bs. position I omit 1. Because Mr. B. hath not set down the place 2. Because I conceive Mr. B. hath produâ—ed the chief To the first I answer by denying the major and the proof of it and aver that since the fall God did enter into a Covenant with the Jews which was not in Christ upon terms of Gospel grace The minor is true but God covenanted to be their God upon condition of their obedience to the law of Moses as the words Deut. â—9 13 imply that he may establish thee to day for a people to himself by keeping the laws according to the Covenant they entred into He adds 2. That Covenant wherein the Lord promiseth to circumcise their hearts and the hearts of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they may live was a Covenant of grace for the Apostle to the Hebrews ch â—0 16 17. so describes it But this was such a Covenant as is written Deut. 30.6 Therefore this was a Covenant of grace Answ. Besides the exceptions following it should be proved that the promise Deut. 30.6 was the Oath or Covenant mentioned Deut. 29.13 14. and not rather an interlocutory promise on a special occasion to erect their hearts in expectation of mercy upon their return from captivity 3. Saith Mr. B. That which St. Paul makes the words of the righteousness of faith was the Covenant of grace But this is such as is evident by comparing Rom. 10.6 7 8. with Deut. 30.12 13 14. But to this you give two sorry answers being resolved to say somewhat 1. It is sâ—oken of the command Answ. 1. And is it not also of the promise foregoing 2. And is not this from as great a mistake as the other to think that Gods command is no part of his Covenant That he will be their God is his promise but is that all the Covenant That they shall be his people and so take him for their God and resign themselves to him this is both commanded by him and covenanted by them Answ. The answer was right that the speech of Moses Deut. 30.12 13 14. however accommodated by Paul to another purpose is meant of the word of the law the commandments and
statuâ—es which were written in that very book of the law v. 10. which Moses delivered and it was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it Which cannot be meant thus Who shall ascend into heaven to bring Christ from above or who shall descend into the deep that is to bring Christ again from the dead that we may hear Christ thus brought down and up and do it it were not good sense nor any way congruous to the speech of Moses And to Mr. Bs. reply 1. I say it is not spoken of the promise for that is not a thing for us to hear and do but for God 2. Though the command may be a part of the Covenant in a large sense as it includes all that pertains to a Covenant yet in strict and exact sense a Covenanâ— being an aggregate of promises the command is not part of the Covenant 3. However it is no part of the Covenant and Oath which God swâ—re Deut. 29.13 For what God sware was that which he would do not what he appointed them to do and consequently no part of the Covenant of grace for that is of what God will do for us our faith though it be the condition of the thing promised yet iâ— it not the Covenant oâ— grace 4. The word Deut. 30.14 cannot be meant of the Covenant of grace sith the condition is the hearing and doing of all the law of Moses that they might keep Gods commandments and his statutes and his judgements which reach to judicial and câ—remonial precepts as well as moral that thou mayest live and multiply and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it Locus ille indubitanteâ— de obedienâ—ia totius legis loquitur David Pareus castig Bellarm. tom 4. degrat lib. arb l. 5. c. 6. 2. Saith Mr. B. You answer it is frequent with the Apostle to accommodate words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they were taken from that to which the Apostle applieth them as Rom. 10.18 Answ. A man would think here you plainly mean that it is frequent with the Apostle to wrest and pervert the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense and you can mean no better except you mean that he alludeth to the words making use of the meer phrase without the sense and indeed that is usual in common speech and such is that Rom. 10.18 But that he doth not barely allude to this in Deut. 30. is left undeniable â— He bringeth it in v 6. as Gods description of the righteousness of faith c. having before said Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law c. 2. He addeth the very exposition to every sentence who shall ascend into heaven that is saith he to bring Christ down from above And who shall descend into the deep that is to bring Christ again from the dead 3. He fully expresseth it v. 8. But what saith it The word is nigh thee c. that is the word of faith which we preach that if thou confess with thy mouth c. Is not here a full discovery that the Apostle expoundeth and not onely alludeth to these words Name mee one place in the New Testament that more evidently speaks in an expository way of any Text in the Old Answ. As much is said by the most godly and learned Protestant interpreters of this place as by me and therefore if I be chargeable with accusing the Apostle of wresting and perverting the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense they are likewise so chargeable Beza annot ad Rom. 10.8 By this term the word Moses understandeth the law which God by his voyce published all his people bearing so that they might pretend no ignorance when they had the tables of it described and so might every one recite it out of their mouth and might have it within as it were engraven in their knowledge and mind But what Moses spake of the law all that Paul accommodates to the Goppel by allusion that at length by the Gospel he may teach us to enjoy that indeed which the law promiseth and be fâ—eed from that which it threatneth Diodati annoâ— on Rom. 10.6 St. Paul maketh use of this passage though spoken in another sense The new Annot. on Rom. 10.8 â—y the word Deut. 30.14 Moses understood the law which the Lord published with his own voice and Paul applies it to the preaching of the Gospel which was the perfection of the Law On v. 18. This place is taken out of Psal. 19.4 and is properly meant of that knowledge of God which all men may have by contemplation of the heavens and the câ—eatures therein yet it is by the Apostle very fitly applied to the sound of the word preached by the Apostles â—rapp on Rom. 10.8 Moses meant it of the Law but it more fitly agreeth to the Gospel Piscater analys Paulus alludiâ— ad verba Mosis Deut. 30.14 Willet on Rom. 10. qu. 10. Some think that Moses in that place Deut. 30.12 directly speaketh of the law according to the literal sense and St Paul by a certain allusion applieth that unto faith which Moses uttereth of the law So Theodoret Chrysostome Occumenius Likewise Tostatus upon the place Paul by a certain agreeâ—ent hath translated this place and applied it unto faith Vatablus also saith that Paul followeth not Moses sense but some words Yet Pareus inclineth to think St. Paul here useth but an allusion to that place of Moses dub 6. Daniel Heinsius Exercit. sacr in Rom 10.6 7. E Rom. 10.18 patet rerum esse quod non semel alibi â—â—nuimus sed a magnis observatum Theologis in epistolam praesertim ad Hebraos meninimus novi faderis scriptores verba veteris eleganter venust non semel aliò tranâ—ferre Quod tam usitatum est 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut viâ— ullus fiâ— Homeri versus cuâ—us verba non mutato sensu usurpentur In his autem quod Matthaeus c. 2. v. 18. â— Jerem. 31.15 quod B. Hieronymus vult usurpavit neque pauca sunt in psalmis quae pro instituto suo Paulus maxima cum venustate usurpat Quâ—d nec mirum est cum utrobique idem spiritus qui tanquam propria ac sua ante dicta usurpavit And yet none of these Authors did conceive Paul to have wrested and perverted the Scripture to his own ends from its true sense nor doth my speech infer any such accusation Nor do I mean that Paul alludeth to the words making use of the meer phrase without the sense but that he accommodates words to his purpose that have a different sense in the places whence they are taken from that to which the Apostle applieth them which is no wresting of them To the reason of Mr. B. I answer To the first that I do not find that the Apostle v. 6. brings it in as Gods description of the righteousness of
faith but by a prosopopeia the righteousness of faith is brought in as directing the believer To the second it is true Paul addeth the very exposition to every sentence buâ— not an exposition of the Text in Deut. 30.12 13 14. but an exposition of the words of the righteousness of faith as they are applied thence by the Apostle to his purpose And yet plain Texts which are not so accomodated I cannot â—o put off as I will Your last answer saith Mr. B. is the worst of all You say if the Covenant did contain promises purely Evangelical yet the Covenant in respect of them cannot bee meant of all and every of the Israelites that God would bee a God to them that is sanctifie justifie adopt them to bee heirs of eternal life Answ. 1. God saith you stand all here c. to enter into the Covenant and oath c. And you say it cannot be all whom shall we believe God or you Answ. Both for we say in this point the same that some in the name of all did enter into Covenant and his oath to be a God in them and yet he not be a God to them all that entred into the Covenant but to to them onely that kept the Covenant 2. Saith hee You foully mis-interpret the promise to bee to them a God as if it were such as could bee verified to none but the elect God hath pâ—omised to others to bee their God who are not elect as is undeniable in the text Therefore in a larger sense as I have before in due place fully explained it Answ. It is sure foul language to tell me I foully mis interpret the promisâ— to be to them a God when I interpret not at all tâ—e promise Deut. 29.13 but onely infer from Mr. â—s interpretation of it as purely Evangelical which I count false that then it in respect of promises purely Evangelical should be meant onely of the elect which I agree with him to be absurd Nor is the matter salved by telling me that God hath promsed to others to be their God who are not elect For however hee hath not promised to be a God in respect of promises purely Evangelical to be a God by sanctifying justifying adopting to eternal life to any but the elect Yet Mr. B. asks me And why may not God promise justification adoption and sanctification in the sense as Divines and Scripture most use it for the work following faith and eternal life and all on the condition of faith and this to more then the elect and hath he not done so But of this and of infants condition before Answ. 1. By sanctifying I meant the sanctifying by which faith is produced which is the same with regeneration writing the lawes in the heart Heb. 10.16 and is used so 1 Cor. 1.30 6.11 c. and thus he sanctifieth onely the elect Ephes. 1 4. 2 Thes. 2.13 and I supposed Mr. B. had meant the same by circumcision of the heart to love the Lord Deut. 30.6 and that hee included it in the promise of being a God to them Deut. 29.13 and this sure is proper to the elect if Mr. B. say true Friendly accommod p. 362 Cor novum is given to the elect onely And sure if Mr. B. did not mean this he did not mean the Covenant of grace or the Gospel covenant in which this is the first promise Heb. 10.16 2. But let after-sanctification be onely meant and justification condition of faith yet I think the promise is made of these to none but the elect â—ith none are believers but they An offer may bee made to others by men but no promise by which God is bound and will performe it to any other 3 If the Covenant bee on condition of faith then it is not made to infants for they believe not Nor is the promise made to infants on condition of parents faith for though Mr. B. dream so yet the Scripture saith not so nor is it true For 1. the promise should then be made to Esau as well as to Jacob in infancy which the Apostle refutes Rom. 9 11 12 13 2. If the promise were made to infants upon their parents faith then God is engaged to sanctifie them in infancy and if so he doth it and if he do either holiness by sanctification of the spirit may bee lost or else they must all go to heaven for all holy ones go thither 3. The promise to the father is upon condition of his own faith therefore so is the promise to the child for there is not a different promise to the father and the child upon different conditions But I hasten He adds You would sain say somewhat too to that Deut. 30.6 but like the rest 1. You confess it is a promise of spiritual grace but to the Jewes after their captivitie 2. â—nd upon condition of obedience 3. And not performed to all their seed but onely to the elect Answ. 1. But did God promise spiritual grace to the Jews after the captivity and not before Repl. The promise Deut. 30.6 is to the Israelites to do it for them onely after their captivity I said not after the captivity as Mr. B. speaks Was not the promise saith he made to them that then were Repl. It was Were not they saith he captivated oft in the time of the Judges and so it might at least be made good then Repl. I grant it If God saith he would do as much for them before they forsook him and brake the Covenant by rebellion as he would do afterward when they repented then he would circumcise their hearts before as well as after But the former is true therefore the later Repl. I grant it yet this proves not the promise as it is there Deut. 30.6 to be made to them of what God would do for them afore their captivity 2. Saith hee And if it bee on condition of obedience then you confess there are conditional promises and then it was made to more then the elect Answ. I deny the consequence 3. Saith hee If it were not performed to any but the elect no wonder when it was a conditional promise and the rest performed not the condition which God will cause the elect to perform Answ. Sure it was not promised to any but to whom God performs it For though it were on a condition of theirs yet it was such a condition as was to be wrought and was promised by him which hee did onely to the elect And thus Mr. B. may see my vindication or my descant on this text and the Reader perhaps will wonder at the vanity and wilfulness of Mr. Bs. exceptions against it SECT LXVIII Neither from Rom. 4.11 nor by other reason hath Mr. B. proved ch 18 19. part 1. of Baptism That Infant Churchmembership was partly natural partly grounded on the Law of Grace and Faith CH. 18. Mr. B. writes thus My 13th arg is from Rom. 4. almost all the Chapter wherein the
27. Mr. B. goes on thus The 22th arg That doctrine which leaveth us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infants in the world is certainly false doctrine But that doctrine which denieth any infants to bee members of the visible Church doth leave us no sound grounded hope of the justification or salvation of any dying infants in the world therefore it is certainly false doctrine No reasonable temperate Christian will deny the major I think The minor I know will be passionately denied Mr. T. takes it hainously at Mr. M. and Mr. Bl. that they pinch him a little in this point as if it were but to raise an odium upon him And yet when hee hath done all for the mitigation of the odium which hee saith was his end Apol. pag. 62. yet he doth so little towards the vindication of his doctrine that hee confesseth it suspendeth any judgement of infants wee can neither sâ—y they are in the Covenant of grace nor out Apol. pag. 62. Hee labours to prove that there is no such promise or Covenant in Scripture as assures salvation to the infants of believers but that God would have us to suspend our judgement of this matter and rest on the Apostles determination Rom. 9.18 yet that there is a hope though not certain yet probable and comfortable taken from some general indefinite promises of the favor of God to the parents and experience that in all ages hoth been had of his merciful dealing with the children of his servants Apol. p. 112. Answ. What I took hainously at Mr. M. and Mr. Bl. I did justly what I said that there is no such covenant or promise in Scripture as assures salvation to the infants of believers I meant it of them as such or universally what I said that God would have us to suspend our judgment of this matter I meant whether this or that particular infant be in the Covenant of grace To Mr. Bs. arg I say if his major be meant of such a grounded hope as is certain from faith believing a particular promise of God concerning believers infants dying in infancy as Mr. B. seems to understand it I deny the major if very probable and likely from such declarations and promises and experiments as we have I deny the minor and shall follow Mr. B. I will first saith he prosecute my argument and then consider of these words understand therefore that 1. I do not charge their doctrine with a positive affirmation that all infants do certainly perish but with the taking away of all positive Christian well grounded hope of their salvation Answ. Yet by your charging us with this that by our doctrine they are not so much as seemingly in a state of salvation you do charge our doctrine with a positive affirmation that they all certainly perish And it will appear by that which follows that with you no hope of their salvation is Christian and well grounded but what is cerâ—ain upon a promise of God apprehended by faith in which is the chief difference between us You add That the question now is not of particular infants of believers but of the species or whole sort that so die not whether this or that infant be certainly saved or we have any such hope of it but the question is whether there be a certainty or any such hope that God will justâ—fie and save any infants in the world or any infants of helievers at all Answ Between whom the question is as Mr. B here saith I do not understand the question between me and my Antagonists is not as Mr. B. here sets it down I have always asserted that there is a certainty and hope that God will justifie and save some infants in the world some infants of believers and have often acknowledged those that Christ prayed for laying on his hands were elect ones but the question is whether there be any such promise to a believer and his natural seed wâ—ich assures salvation to them as the seed of believers and consequently whether there be a certain hope of theâ— all dying in their infancy that they shall be saved This I have denied because I know no such promise in Scripture and if there were it would prove the salvation of those at age though prophane as Esau For if the promise belong to the seed as such and it includes salvation then it assures 〈◊〉 all the seed of belieâ—ers whether dying at age prophanely or in infancy So that it is not true that the question is not whether this or that infant bee certainly saved or we have any such hope of it nor is it true that the question is of the species or whole sort that so die or whether there be a certainty or any such hope that God will justifie and save any infants in the world or any infants of believers at all yea Mr. B. in the words next before would not charge our doctrine with a positive affirmation that all infants do certainly perish But the question is whether there be a certainty from a promise that he will save them all dying in infancy nor is the question of the species or whole sort of infants but of the particular infants of believers Now saith he I affirm 1. that there is a ground of Christian hope left us in this that God doth save some infants yea and that particular ones though that be not now the question Answ. Now this I affirm too though I assert not such a certainty by promise to infants of believers as Paedobaptists do 2. Saith he That they that put them all out of the visible Church leave us no such hope I will begin with the later which is the minor in the argument And 1. I take it for granted that to be a visible member of of the Church and to be a member of the visible Church is all one He that denieth that will but shew his vanity And that the invisible Church or the sincere part is most properly and primarily called the Church and the body of Christ and the Church as visible containing also the unsincere part is called the Church secondarily and for the sake of the invisible and so it is called the body because men seem to be of the invisible Church therefore they truly are of the visible If we were fully certain by his own external discoveries that any man were not of the invisible Church that man should not be taken to be of the visible Therefore the properties and priviledges of the invisible Church are usually given to the visible as to be Saints holy all the children of God by faith Gal. 3.26 to be Christs body 1 Cor. 12.13 to be branches in Christ Joh 15.2 c. because as the sincere are among them so all visible members seem in the essentials of Christianity to be sincere therefore if any converted Jew or Pagan were to be taken into the Church upon his prâ—fession we ought not
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
3. If Mr. Bl. had not minded to pick a quarrel he might have interpreted as indeed I meant the term effect not strictly or rigourously as Scheibler speaks but in the sense in which Logicians call the Eclipse of the Moon the effect of the inter position of the Earth between it and the Sun though it be rather a consequent then an effect after which manner I explained the term cause in the same Book Review part 1. sect 35. p. 238. 4. Let the word effect be left out and let the word consequent be put in my argumen hath the same force and therefore this was in Mr. Bl. a meer wrangling exception Let 's view what he saith in answer thereto He saith Mr. T. lays all upon God Gods reprobation causes blindness and their breaking off is by blinding here is no hand but Gods in their destruction And now the blasphemy of the consequence being denied so that blindness is no effect of reprobation breaking off being not by blinding what becomes of the rule of opposites here produced And Mr. T. should not be ignorant that election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare otherwise as election leads to salvation without any merit of works so reprobation should lead to destruction without any merit of sin which Contraremonstrants unanimously deny though Mr. T. here will have them to affirm having before quoted v. 8. 10. of this chapter he saith from which Anti-Arminians gather absolute reprobation and then explains himself what this absolute reprobation in his sense is in the words spoken to And then in opposition to me cites Gomarus denying absolute reprobation in my sense that God absolutely reprobates any man to destruction without subordinate means to wit sin that God doth not effect sin or decree to effect it And Dr. Prideaux that sin follows not on reprobation as an efficient but deficient is a consequent not effect of reprobation And Mr. Ball that Gods decree is not the cause of mans sin Answ. In all this there 's not a word that takes away the force of the argument if that word effect had been left out as it was left out in the first framing of it and consequent had been put in though the argument had been as strong if that word had been used or as it was in the first framing neither used He accuseth me of blasphemy here as asserting blindness to be the effect of reprobation that I lay all upon God no hand but Gods in mens destruction that I make Contraremonstrants to affirm an absolute reprobation without any merit of sin and that I explain absolute reprobation gathered by them from Rom. 11.8 10. in this sense of all which charges there is not one true so that here is nothing but a fardel oâ— manifest calumnies And as for what he alledgeth that breaking off is not by blinding because blindness was their guilt and casting off their just sentence and the guilt and punishment are not one it doth no whit infringe my argument For these may well stand together that Gods reprobation is executed by blinding and yet blindness their guilt and upon their unbelief or blindness God breaks them off by a just sentence as on the other side election is the cause of Gods enlightening whereby the ingraffed branches believe and through faiâ—h they are by Gods act of grace ingraffed into the invisible Church of true believers And in this manner the rule of opposites holds evidently although election and reprobation in the work of salvation and damnation do not per omnia quadrare nor there be any such absolute reprobation as leads to destruction without any merit of sin Which kind of absolute repâ—obation I never asserted nor ascribed to Contraremonstrants who onely make reprobation absolute in that the reason why God in his eternal decree or purpose did choose one to life and not another is not the foreseen belief and obedience of one or the foreseen unbelief or disobedience of the other but his own will Rom. 9.11 12 13 18. Nor do I make sin in proper or strict acception the effect of Gods act I never said blindness is the effect of Gods reprobation as Mr. Bl. misreports me nor that God doth by any positive influx work it in man as an efficient but I said blinding was the effect of reprobation in a larger sense as effect is taken for a consequent and that it was by blinding which doth not at all gainsay the sayings of those learned Writers alledged by Mr. Bl. And if Gods severity in not sparing the natural branches were explicitely no more then what Christ threatned Matth. 21.43 yet my argument holds good For the taking away of Gods Kingdome is not onely the taking away of the preaching of the Gospel but also the being of the Church of true believers among them as heretofore and so the breaking off was by blinding and the ingraffing into the invisible Church of true believers by giving of faith according to election which was to be proved My 6th arg was If reingraffing of the Jews produceth salvation is by turning them from iniquity taking away their sins according to Gods Covenant then it is into the invisible Church by giving faith But the former is true v. 26 27. Ergo the later Mr. S. saith To which I give a fair answer that doubtless according to those promises when the Jews shall be called in to be a visible Church again there shall bee abundance of more glory brought in with them then ever yet the world saw and the new heavens and the new earth the coming down of the new Jerusalem and all those glorious things are fitted to fall in with that time And from these considerations many do interpret v. 26. litterally And so shall all Israel bee saved But get 1. they shall be ingraffed in as a visible Church else Abraham and the Fathers would never be mentioned as roots 2. They shal be ingraffed as they were broken off now they were broken off as a visible Church 3. All that can be gathered is this that the fulness of salvation and the vertues of the promises shall more fully and universally take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them and so the invisible visible Church be more pure and as one in the earth but this fulness shall be to them as a visible Church and on the earth Answ. 'T is a fair answer but such as hath nothing to weaken the argument there being neither of the premises denied but the minor granted expresly that the vertues of the promises shall take effect on the Jews even to the salvation of all of them which if true then none are ingraffed but elect persons and their ingraffing into the invisible Church now the ingraffing of the Gentiles was the same with the re-ingraffing of the Jews if then the Jews re ingraffing were into the invisible Church according to election so is
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
bound by the precept Gen. 17.9 the former seal ceasing and another substituted to baptise their children This is as near as I well can gather it the force of Mr. Cs. discourse Against which I except 1. That the term everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 doth not prove it to bee meant of another Canaan then that part of the earth which the Israelites possessed For besides places before alledged wherein the terms everlasting and for ever are vsed for a time of some few ages and shorter Numb 25.13 God promiseth a Covenant of an everlasting Priesthood to Phinehas and his seed after him and yet we know that Priesthood was to cease Heb. 7.12 It is promised Ier. 35.19 that Ionadab the son of Rechab should not want a man to stand before God for ever and yet this could be true onely of some ages Therefore Mr. Cs. reason is of no force from the term everlasting to infer the extent of that promise to the N. T. Nor indeed can the reason be good For if it were then God should not promise at all the possession of the earthly Canaan in that place But that is manifestly false for the Text saith Gen. 17.8 that God would give to Abraham and his seed the land of Canaan wherein Abraham was then a stranger which can be understood of no other then that part of earth which is elsewhere called the land of the Canaanites Perâ—zites Jebusites c. I deny not that in the latent sense there may be a promise of eternal life to Abrahams spiritual seed though I find no passage in the N. T. so expounding the promise Gen. 17.8 yet sure it is but bold presumption to build any doctrine on an allegory not expounded so by the Holy Ghost and it is in mine apprehension a great usurpation of the Divine prerogative to impose duties on men consciences by arguments drawn from such devised senses 2. That Mr. C. builds his inference upon the conjunction therefore Gen. â—7 9. which though it be so in the English translation yet is it in Hebr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by the Tigur And thou by Pareus But thou by Piscator Thou verily which is enough to shew there is no strength in Mr. Cs. inference sith there is no firm ground on which it rests 3. But were it granted that therefore Gen. 17.9 were the onely reading and that the command is to be meant also of Abrahams spiritual seed even in our days yet that the inference of the command v. 9. should be onely from the promise v. 8. or v. 7. and not also from the promises v. 4 5 6 I know no goâ—d reason iâ— or can be given 4. Were it that there could be good reason given thereof yet sith the promise v. 8. is mixt containing both spiritual promise if Mr. C. be in the right and promise pecuâ—iar to the natural seed of Abraham me thinks the precept should be onely to that spiritual seed which is also natural and not bind the Gentile believers sith they have no part of the promise as it concerns the pâ—ssession of the earthly Canaan from which the duty is inferred as well if not onely as from the promise of the heavenly Canaan 5. But were all that Mr. C. would have here granted that the term everlasting possession v. 8. proves it meant of the times of the N. T. that therefore v. â— proves the command extends to the spiritual seed now that it is from the promise v. 7. or 8. not from the rest v 4 5 6. that it is to Gentile believers now and not peculiar to Israel after the flesh yet sure if the promise bâ— the reason of the command and the commandâ— belongs to them to whom the promise belongs it belongs to no other and therefore to none but elect persons to whom that promise is made no meere professours of faith are bound to keep Gods Covenant by vertue of the promise sith no promise is made to them 6. Were this also granted that the command is to every professour of faith to keep the Covenant as is enjoyned v. 9. then it remains still as a duty for every professour of Christian faith to circumcise his males of eight days old which is contrary to Christianity For there is no other thing commanded there then Circumcision But to prevent this Mr. C. saith It is to be observed that this command of God is primarily fixed upon the general duty namely the Covenant to be kept and not upon this or that way of keeping either by circumciâ—â—ng or baptizing so as the circumcising of the child came under the command onely upon this because it was declared then to be the token of the Covenant and by the words it is supposed that when it should cease to be the token of the Covenant it should no longer be a duty and what else by the same authority should be made the token of the same Covenant would be the duty in stead thereof Mark the words he doth not say Thou shalt therefore circumcise every man-child among you as a token of the Covenant between me and you for so had that been made the token for perpetuity to have continued so long as the Covenant it self But 1. in general he saith v. 9. that is they should observe and perform the token of the Covenant whatever that prove to be and he addeth in the 2 d. place v. 10 14. therefore as I said as for Circumcision that was a duty onely upon those words declaring that to be then the token Circumcision is now abolished yet the command of keeping the token of Abrahams Covenant is still in force and binding to Abrahams spiritual seed in their Generations therefore what is now the token of that Covenant must be observed in stead thereof Answ. No wise and just Law-giver would ever make such a command of a general duty concerning ceremonies or rites then undetermined but to be determined two thousand years after Thou shalt keep my Covenant that is what ceremony I shall now appoint thee or what I shall hereafter appoint when I take that away such indefinite dis-junctive commands so ambiguous un-intelligible to be understood at one time one way at another time another way are so like Delphick jugling answers as that I dare not ascribe them to the Almighty Many absurdities follow on this conceit of Mr. C. which I have before set down For present these arguments from the Text are against it 1. There is nothing enjoyned Gen. 17.9 but what Abraham was enjoyned in his own person to do as well as his seed after him in their generations this is proved from the express words And God said unto Abraham thou shalt keep my covenant therefore and again thou and thy seed after thee in their generations twice is this imposed on Abraham distinctly named and the term therefore spectially applied to him and after with difference from yet with his seed so that to deny this is to deny it's light
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
Pemble vind Fidei sect 2. c. 3. sect 4. c. 1 2. alledging the Apostles words concerning Abraham who had not to glory before God nor was justified by works Rom. 4.1 2 c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former when he saith Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdome dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith But of this by the way That which he alledgeth about the term Gods house 1 Tim. 3.15 2 Cor. 6.16 and separate Act. 13.2 2 Cor. 6.17 that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament though it were true yet proves no more but this that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described the Old Testament is necessary but not that which is to be proved that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old Mr. C. adds p 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11.24 Mar. 10.14 Acts 15.10 Mat. 28.19 which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review I need onely to refer the Reader thither Yet I add it is but said without any proof that 1 Cor. 7.14 that children are termed holy because they come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth and separateth from that which is common or unclean For 1. there 's not a word brought to shew that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents 2. Nor that the scope analysis allusion in the Text leads to such an exposition 3. Nor doth it follow that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth God blessed Noah and his sons Gen. 9.1 yet all of them were not sanctified yea many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons Psal. 107.38 Ierem. 12.1 much less is it true that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy yet not blessed 4. That this exposition is farre from the Apostles scope and arguing is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates heere I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24 are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles ingraffed are made natural branches sith they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation and though it bee true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward priviledges the Jews had by birth or are any of them ingraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers or that they are to be accounted holy by us till God hath purified their hearts by faith Acts. 15.9 And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to bee received into Church relation till they profess the faith such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagins being no where to be found and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation without profession of faith by each person so accounted there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples upon their own profession so judged no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagins But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith though wee know not them to be inherently holy or in the Covenant of grace Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy because they are not onely within the Covenant of Abraham but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate 1 Cor. 7.14 that it had been but affirming the thing is shewed to be false in the first part of this Review sect 16. And it is false which he imagins that the Apostle thus reasoned that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards or that he â—scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer which and what else hee saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11 and 9.12 is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect 11 c. to the end of the Book that mee thinks Mr. C. should afore hee had printed his Sermons have viewed them and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered without shewing the insufficiency of the answers if hee meant candidly as one that endeavoured to clâ—er the truth But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building that upon this account not onely children of believers but also nations must be reputed holy because the promise is that believers shall bee blessings also unto nations To this he answers The case is not the same for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing which the Lord commandeth out of Sion But as for nations they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church Therefore although such as are of the Church and the children also of such families are holy yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy Ref. I reply the objection in form stands thus They which come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. must be reputed holy This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. â—04 and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism I subsume But nations yea all nations come under the word of bâ—essing from God in as much as that word was not onely confirmed unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. and if the word families bee taken as Mr. C. seems to take it for housholds and all housholds then the same objection is concerning all in housholds servants wives as well as children they come under the bleâ—â—ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition Ergo according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition
commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off To which I reply 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect that is to bee a sign of it might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house but motive that is impulsive cause I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed there being nothing but his own will according to the counsel of which he worketh all things Ephes. 1.11 that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive or end and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it and the persons who used it as Abraham Isaac and Jacob used it as being in Covenant yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onely that were in the Covenant of grace nor did God by the use of it seal signifie assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised and therefore no part of the objection is taken off that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace and denied to persons that were and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed When Mr. M. said persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst I took it he meant they should conform to them He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael and Esau and others were circumcised for some temporal respects that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onely nor at all either as temporal blessings or types but because God commanded I do as good as deny it sith if they were circumcised with respect to noâ—hing but the command it sealed nothing it was no seal at all To which I reply I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects and though I alledged Cameron saying that it sealed earthly promises yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau Nor do I count it any absurdity to say it sealed nothing to them or it was no seal at all to them And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them nor any seal at all and that he must as well as I do if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace as Mr. M. intimates but this I say though God commanded Circumcision that he might signifie Christ to come and Evangelical grace by him yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace as the proper and adequate reason of the duâ—y of Circumcision but because of Gods command and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised as e gr women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine though Mr. M. did not understand it When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace he tels me 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan which I grant if he mean it to some that were circumcised yet if he mean it to none it is false 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace according to that 1 Tim. 4.8 But neither this nor any other Text proves that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace prosperity and outward greatness and dominion therein is promised to a Christian believer now as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more yet with persecution Mark 10.30 which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church But this is not that whiâ—h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace Lastly when I excepted agaiâ—st his speech that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace and Esau till by their Apostaâ—e they discovenanted themselves 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal 4.28 29. Gen. 17.19 20. Heb. 11.9 To this he replâ—es not 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant but the outward administration But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace nor visible profession nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision For infants of believers make no visible profession and if his argument were they were under the outward administration that it to be Circumcised or Baptized and therefore they were to be sealed that is to be Circumcised or Baptized is mere trifling and delusory of the reader who expects from his words a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace is made to every infant child of a believer 2.
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
grace of God is straitned as to our posterity which he counts absurd Hereto many things are replied by me 1. That this was never a priviledge to believers that their children should be in the Covenant of grace God never made such a promise to every true believer that he would be God to every believer and his natural seed nor commanded that wee should repute the infants of believers to bee in the Covenant of grace This hath been largely handled in my review of Mr. Ms. second conclusion 2. That the pretended priviledge of a Believers infant childrens visible Churchmembership and title to the initial seal was not from the Covenant of Gospel grace but from the peculiar dealing of God towards the nation of the Hebrews out of peculiar reasons concerning that Churchstate which that people were to have untill Christ came which is largely discussed in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument Section 50 c. of this part of the Review 3. That even then when it was a priviledge to the Hebrew people yet title to the initial seal was not common to all Believers children not to those under eight dayes old nor to females nor to Proselites of the gate as v. g. to Cornelius and his children 4. That a priviledge there is to the Jewes even to the Nation and that arising from Gods Covenant of Gospel grace that their posterity shall after some hundred years rejection bee re-ingraffed and yet this not to any Gentile Believer Prince Preacher or Martyr concerning their posterity and therefore it is no absurdity to say that in some respect the priviledges of the Covenant of grace even of the substance of it were more large to some of the Hebrew believers then to the Gentiles in respect of posterity 5. That the personal priviledges of Abraham Mary c. were more truely pertinent to the Covenant of grace though not common to all Jews then infants visible Chvrchmembership and title to the initial seal 6. That priviledges are meer arbitrary things and that no reason why they are given to some and not to others is needfull to be assigned besides the donors will 7. That there is no more reason to say God grace is less now because infants are not visible Churchmembers and baptized then it is to say it is less because Christ is not descended from them they are not Fathers of the faithfull 8 That there were many priviledges which the Jews had which we have not as those Rom. 3.1 9.4 to have a Temple High-Priest on earth c. 9. That the want of these is abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without any particular thing of the same kinde in the stead of them and therefore the want of Churchmembership and initial seal may in like manner bee said to bee recompensed by his comming 10. That the priviledge the children of Levi had that their posterity should inherit the Priesthood be maintained by the offerings of the people be exempt from many burthens is not now to Ministers children nor any thing instead of it and yet there is as much reason from the Covenant of Levi why Ministers children should have this priviledge or somewhat instead of it as from the Covenant of Abraham that our children should have Baptism in stead of Circumcision 11. That young children were to eat the Passeover and yet children of three or four years old are not admitted to the Lords Supper and consequently after the rate of Mr. Ms. reasoning the grace of God is straitned to us in respect of our posterity 12. That the grace of God is not denied by not baptizing infants for that would infer that it did give grace 13. That by denying infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism wee do not put them out of the Covenant of grace or Church of God 14. That Baptism is a duty rather then a priviviledge 15. That the use of it is rather for us to seal to God by it that is to testifie the repentance and faith of the baptized then for God to us as assuring by it the promise of Gospel grace 16. That by baptizing an infant the parent is not assured that the child is in the Covonant of grace 17. That through the want of infants visible Churchmembership such as the Jews children had wee have no loss of priviledge but rather benefit it being a state of imperfection 18. That the want of the initial seal which the Jewes had is a benefit it having a burthen annexed to it 19. That children have no less of the grace of God by their want of Christian visible Churmembership and Baptism then the Jewes infants had 20. That parents have as much cause of comfort concerning their children without these as they have by them Mr M. p. 191. speaks thus I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore we must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jewes that their infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initial seal Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initial seal then his grace to Believers under the N. T. is straitned as to their posterity This argument appears so clear to me that I must confess my self one of those dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence Answ. Mr. M. hath ill recited my frame of the argument which he rejects by leaving out the chief words without an institution Yet his new frame mends not the matter but indeed is in effect all one with that which he saith would take with no sober Christian For the Jewes and the whole Church of the Jewes are the same and had it and must have it expressed but the same which Mr. M. saith in more words Nor doth he put in any thing of Gods will or institution to have it so and therefore there is no more reason why his new frame should take with any sober Christian then the former Yet I shall view it as it is And 1. I deny the antecedent God did not give the priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their infants should have the initial seal meaning it of all 2. I deny the consequence if by grace he mean Gospel grace though infants of Christians be not reputed to belong to the visible Church nor are baptized yet the grace of the Gospel that is remission of sin sanctification adoption glorification which is that the Scripture makes Gospel grace is not straitned to Christians as to their posterity And the reasons of this denial are so plain to me that I see no clearness in it but should take my self dull if I should not discern its weakness For the infant visible churchmembership being by reason of the peculiar national churchstate of the Jews and circumcision of infants by reason of that which was
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
visible Church how was the Eunuch baptized Acts 8 And if the covenant of grace nakedly considered giveth a person which is actually in it a remote right to the initiatory seal but it doth not give an immediate right thereto for so the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant onely giveth this proximate right to that seal God being the God of order will have that his Church seal to be attained in a way of order as of old strangers might not be circumcised but with some submission to that Church order explicitely or implicitely and so now and the order be as Mr. C in the 5th section determines to be observed of communion in breaking bread after they were baptized how do those of N. E. admit to breaâ—ing of bread those who who onely as born in a Parish were baptized in infancy without another baptism That either Matth. 28.19 20. or any where else the orderly and ordinary dispensation of the seal is committed to the visible Church is more then I finde nor do I know it necessary to right order that believers must be of a particular visible Church afore they be baptized If Catechumini in covenant and visible Church estate might bee hindered from Baptism for trial for a time much more should infants of whom we have no knowledge concerning their future or present estate be in prudence put off from Baptism till there be some trial of thâ—m if their right were as Mr. C. doth though falsly imagine Sect. 7. Mr. C. speaks thus And because in this particular some stress of the main case is put 1. I shall endeavour yet fuâ—ther to confiâ—m it that covenanâ— interest carrieth a main stroak in point of application of that seal to persons interested therein and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect Answ. This proposition being that in which some stress or as I conceive the whole stress of the main case is put should have been delivered more clearly and confirmed more fully but as now it is it is delivered ambiguously and so is fitter to delude a Reader then to instruct him That seal which was last mentioned was Baptism but the proofs following shew that he meant it of Circumcision and as if there were the same reason of Circumcision and of Baptism which neither he nor any Paedobaptist ever proved what is said of Circumcision is by him meant of Baptism and so the Reader merely mocked The application of Baptism or Circumcision may either refer to Gods applâ—ing it by way of command or mans by way of administration and in this I think Mr. Cs. speeches are delusory sometimes meant of Gods application by way of command and sometimes of the administrators act in circumcising or baptizing The phrase of carrying the main stroak is likewise ambiguous and so delusory it being uncertain whether it carry the main stroke with God as his motive to appoint it or with the administratour as his rule and warrant to do it And when he terms it the main stroak it had been requisite hee should tell whether there be not some other thing which carries a stroak if not the main yet so great as that without it the application of the seal is not warrantable as profession of faith by the person to whom it is to bee applied Hee might have understood by my Examen which he had to answer that I took it a great fault in Mr. M. that hee did not more distinctly tell what hee meant by the Covenant being in covenant which hee speaks of infants of believers And sure if Mr. C. had meant to deal rightly as one that sought truth and to shew my errour he should have cleared what Covenant hee meant inward or outward the Covenant of Gospel grace purely delivered or the mixt Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. what the Church covenant is how the Covenant of grace is invested with it when a Church is a political visible body how a Church covenant is the form of it who and what persons and how they are interested in it whether by Gods promise their own faith or profession or anothers or by the Churches admission All which or at least many of them are requisite to bee distinctly declared that a reader may clearly understand his meaning and so examine his proof And whether the exception of incapacity in any bodily respect be meant onely because of the females circumcision or thereby infants are excepted from Baptism who have not the use of their tongues to profess the faith of Christ and are not well able to brook that dipping or plunging which for all Mr. Cs. scriblings is and will be found the onely way of baptizing appointed by Christ is uncertain This were a sufficient reason for me to answer no further to this proposition but to wait till his Bill be mended Yet I shall examine his proofs of this which should be his meaning if he spake to his purpose That the interest which a person though an infant hath to the Covenant of grace in that he is a believers child by vertue of the promise of God to a believer and his seed when that believer is a member of a visible political Church by Church covenant explicit or implicit is a sufficient warrant to that visible political Church to admit and to the Elder to baptize that infant without any other revelation of God or profession of the infant Let 's now see what Mr. C. brings for proof of this First saith he then it is the ground-work given to the general Law about an initiatory Covenant duty scil application of some injoyned initiatory seal and therefore must be of like force in the particular branches and ways of such initiatory sealing as circumcision and baptizing Answ. Such a general Law is a mere fiction and what is meant by the ground-work of it is uncertain Gen. 17.9 10. is no other Law but about circumcision the word rendred therefore may bee otherwise translated if it were the onely reading yet the sense might be this because I make this Covenant thou shalt therefore circumcise thy males to keep it in remembrance or to assure thee and thy posterity that I will perform it But that there is any such intimation as if the persons circumcised were circumcised as and for their interest in that Covenant is a mere dream often refuted by mee much more is it a dotage to assert that according to a persons interest in that Covenant or a part of it as Mr. C. conceives so they have right to Baptism in the Christian church Secondly saith Mr. C. the Covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant now it is the form of a political visible Church body giving therefore both a Church-being as I may say as natural forms do a natural being and withall the priviledge of a member of such a church-body suitable to its memberly estate as if this of the Church initiatory seal even to the least member thereof although they are not
yet so perfect in all actual energy of compleat members and so neither in all actual priviledges of such compleat members I suppose what ever others deny this way yet our opposites do not deny that Church-covenant explicit or implicit is the form of a visible political Church as such so that till that bee they are not so incorporated as to bee fit for Church dispensations or acts of peculiar Church power over each other more then over others over whom they can have no power unless they had given explicit or implicit consent thereto as reason will evince Answ. This reason as I conceive goes upon these suppositions which Mr. C. conceives will not be denied 1. That there is a church-Church-covenant over and besides Gods covenant of Gospel grace and mans believing and professing of faith in him through Jesus Christ whereby the members of a visible political Church do engage themselves to walk together in Christian communion and to submit to their rulers and to each other in the Lord. Now such a Church covenant though I confess it may be according to prudence at some times and in some cases usefull to keep persons who otherwise would bee unsetled in a fixed estate of communion yet I find not any example of such a Church covenant in the old or new Testament and in some cases it may insnare mens consciences more then should be 2. That the Covenant of grace whether Gods promise to us or ours to God invested with Church covenant that is as I conceive Mr. Cs. meaning to be together with it is the form of a visible political Church which gives it the being of such a Church as such so that till that be they are not so incorporated as to be fit for Church dispensations or Church power In which I conceive are many mistakes 1. That the Sacraments are seals or church dispensations are committed to the Church which are not committed to the Church which consists of men and women but to the guides and over-seers of it 2. That Church power or as Mr. Cotton in his treatise of the keyes of the Church the power of the keyes is committed or given to the Church in which are mistakes that either censures Ecclesiastical or as the Schoolmen and Canonists term it the power of ordination and jurisdiction Ecclesiastical are meant by the keyes Matth. â—6 19 or that they were given to Peter as representing the Church the Scripture doth no where commit Church dispensations or power to the Church but to the guides and overseers and rulers of the Church for the Church 3. That till a company of believers be a visible poliâ—ical Church they are not fit for church dispensations or censures which I conceive not true there being examples in Scripture of their breaking bread together Acts 2. who were not such a political visible Church of fixed members under fixed officers united by Church covenant as Mr. C. describes Nor were Christ and his Apostles such a Church when first they did break bread Nor did Christ appoint Baptism Matth. 28.19 to be onely in and with such a Church nor do the exampls Acts 2. or 8. or 10 or 16 or 18. intimate any such condition but rather the contrary 4. That the covenant of grace with a church covenant fore mentioned give the being of such a visible Church political But the Covenant of grace of it self doth not give any actual being it is a promise of something future and therefore puts nothing in actual being extra causas but assures it shall bee by some cause in act which in this thiâ—g is the calling of God from which the Church and each member have their being as from the efficient from faith in the heart as the form of the invisible Church and each member from profession of faith as the form of the visible Church and each member as Ames Med. Th. lib. 1. cap. 32. Sect. 7. that which makes it political is the union under officers and lawes without a Church covenant it is a political visible Church if there bee but at present an union or conjunction in the same profession of Christian faith under officers and lawes of a number of Christians they are a Church visible political though they should be dissolved the next hour and though they enter into no covenant of Church-fellowship or subjection for the future and therefore church covenant is neither of the form of such a true Church nor as Mr. Weld in answer to Mr. Rathbard of a pure Church but it is a good means in prudence to conserve a Church so constituted that they may not divide and scatter from each other but may continue in communion 5. That by this incorporating they have peculiar Church power over each other and without tht Church covenant they can have no power But neither do I conceive this true For the power whiâ—h christians have is to reprove admonish censure shun society chuse officers reject false teachers c. this power they have by the laws of Christ without a church covenant 6. That Church dispensations and acts of peculiar Church power are limited to those particular persons who joyn with us by Church covenant But this I conceive not right nor agreeable to such Scriptures as these 1 Cor. 3.22 10.17 12.13 3. It is supposed by Mr. C. that the Covenant with Church covenant gives the priviledge of a member of such a church body suitable to its memberly estate as is this of the Church initiatory seal But in this sure Mr. C. is quite out and besides their own practise who do not give the initiatory seal after they are members by church covenant but baptize them or suppose them baptized in infancy and then joyn them us members by church covenant now if church covenant did give the priviledge of the initiatory seal then they should first enter into church covenant and then have the initiatory seal or be baptized 4. It is supposed by Mr. C. that there are such little churchmembers by such a covenant as are to have the priviledge of the initiatory seal though they be not compleat members so as to have the actual priviledge of the after seal and other church power But sure the Scripture acknowledgeth in the Christian church no members but what partake of the Lords Supper as well as baptism as is manifest from 1 Cor. 10.17 1 Cor. 12.13 and have church power as others of their sex and rank Now all these suppositions though they were granted except the last would not prove the thing Mr. C. aims at and that which he makes the main reason from whence he would infer the conclusion namely the Covenant with Church covenant gives being and priviledge of the initiatory seal makes against him infants making no such Church covenant nor according to their own discipline doth their parents Church covenant serve instead of the childs sith afore the child can bee admitted to communion of breaking of bread and other power
Besides the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a covenant and Church seal is covenant and Church interest Hence called by the name of covenant when yet it is but a sacramental sign and seal of it Gen. 17.13 Act. 7.8 that is first hâ—ld out and sealed as the convoy of all other desired good 2 Pet. 1.4 But especially in that initiatory seal the signation of the covenant is of more considerable weight then the external symbole ceremony and circumstance either of cutting or washing absolutely or relatively considered If washing of a person in the name of the Trinity be a clearer and easier symbole then that of cutting the flesh yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed both by the one and the other And to shew that the covenant is the main thing considerable therein hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the ground-work of the commandment it self as of Circumcision so of Baptism and much more of the application of either to any in covenant Gen. 17.9 10 11. Therefore scil because I have said I will be your God I command you to do thus and thus not because I have commanded you that I therefore promise to do this for you or do you thus and thus at my command and then on therefore I will do so and so for you Answ After the rest of his dictates he here tels us the main in the initiatory seal to be attended is the covenant which I grant but deny that it follows therefore that the rule which the administrator is to observe according to which he is to administer it is the persons interest in the Covenant so as that he must administer it to all and onely those who are in Covenant or to whom the promâ—se is made by God For besides the many reasons to the contrary even concerning Circumcision before given Mr. Cs. own reason is against him For if the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal is Covenant and Church interest and therefore infants in Covenant to be circumcised and baptized by the same reason infants in Covenant are to be admitted to the Passeover and to have the Lords Supper sith they are seals they are Covenant and Church seals infants have Covenant and Church interest in the initiatory seal these things are to be attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal and therefore in every Covenant and Church seal as well as the initiatory As for what he saith about Gen. 17.9 10 11. though I have sundry times observed that the reading v. 9. therefore is not necessary yet omitting that exception I grant what he saith of that Text but withal note 1. that the command is inferred not onely from the promise to be their God but also from the promise of the land of Canaan v. 8. and therefore it might as well follow They to whom God will give the land of Canaan are to have the initiatory seal as that they to whom he promiseth to be God 2. That which is said Gen. 17.9 10 11. is onely of circumcision 3. If it were granted that the covenant is the groundwork of the command it self as of circumcision so of baptism yet it follows not much more of the application of either to any in covenant For though the covenant were Gods reason why he would appoint circumcision yet that 's no rule to us but his command onely a reason of the will of the commander is not always a direction about the command certainly not about each point in the command as Mat. 28.18 it follows not All power is given to me therefore preach and baptize all over whom power is given to me Besides in this very thing the covenant could be no direction whom to circumcise ordinarily sith ordinarily the circumciser could not know to whom in particular the promises whether Evangelical or domestical did belong when they were to circumcise them Yea though Abraham knew Ishmael had no covenant interest there being no promise made to him in it but the contrary declared Gen 17.19 20 21. yet he was to circumcise him and did so The like may be said of Esau and others Mr. C. adds So the Gospel prophesie and promise is prefaced and put in the preamble to that injunction of their baptism by John Luk. 3.3 4 5 6 c. Answ. It is true that the prophesie of John Baptists comming and work and of Christs comming Isa. 40.3 4 5. which I acknowledge to be a Gospel promise are set down as the warrant of Johns preaching the Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins but this doth noâ— prove that this was his rule in baptizing to baptize every one even infants and those onely who had this interest in the Covenant of grace that to them and each of them God promised remission of sins Yea sith Johns Baptism is termed the Baptism of repentance it is clear he required repentance of the baptized as the antecedent to his Baptism and therefore not barely such Covenant interest as Mr. C. ascribes to all infants of believers onely in profession He goes on thus Hence the Gospel and so the Covenant of grace held out as grounding Baptism Act. 2.38 39. And childrens Covenant right was held out as one branch of that Gospel as we proved and from the same principle that they were also to be sealed by Baptism yea albeit the Apostles urged repentance yet the seal is propounded as to the promise Peter said be baptized for the promise is to you And this was no meer moral motive but a Scriptural groundword inforcing it as it was a Scriptural groundwork virtually injoyning and requiring them to repent for the promise is to you Answ. Hence should if there were any good sence in Mr. Cs. speech refer to something precedent from whence that which he speaks is derived which I discern not but a dark way of dictating fitting such as love to puzzle not to inform a reader It is before largely shewed that neither childrens Covenant right external from parents faith hath been held out by Mr. C. as one branch of the Gospel sect 44. of this part of my Review nor that barely from this principle they were to be baptized but that repentance in each person to be baptized is made the antecedent to Baptism sect 22 23 and elsewhere That Peter said not as Mr. C. sets down his words is apparent from the Text Act. 2.38 39. that the promise is urged as a motive to those to whom Peter spake to do their duty of repenting and being baptized is so plain as that Dr. Thamas Goodwin upon the reading the first part of my Review sect 5. did acknowledge it and it is proved so sect 21. here and elsewhere Nor doth Mr. C. here or elsewhere shew it to be any other Scripture groundwork then as a motive to the baptized each of them first to
repent and then to be baptized no rule by which the baptizer is to administer it or the baptized to claim it as his right without his personal repentance and declaration of his faith in Christ into whose name he is to be baptized He adds So Act. 10. Peter saith there is no let to their Baptism and thereof he maketh the visibility of that Covenant grace although common to reprobates also in those first times his groundwork gathering thereby that they were not as formerly prophane unclean and outlaries from the Covenant as Ephes. 2.11 12. but clean and nigh as they themselves were Ans. It is true there was no let to Cornelius his Baptism and those other who were with him yet not meerly because of their extraordinary gifts but because those gifts were manifested by their glorifying God and as may be gathered from Act. 11.17 18. their glorifying God contained expressions of faith in Christ and repentance which whosoever should do as they did it is without doubt they should be baptized But Mr. Cs. Covenant interest of infants who make no shews of faith and repentance as they did Act. 10.46 yeelds no warrant for their Baptism He goes on Washing of regeneration is not grounded on any thing in us or without us so much as on Gods grace and so Covenant favour Tit. 3.5 Answ. It is true this is the inward impulsive cause why God regenerates but Gods grace and Covenant favour is no rule to a Minister to baptize by sith it is an unknown thing which agrees not with the property of a rule Hence also saith Mr. C. by Baptism persons are not sealed into any thing in them so much as into the name of the Father Son and Spirit even into the Covenant name of grace whereby he is known and into Covenant fellowship with the blessed Trinity to which every baptized person prove he elect or reprobate yet is thus externally sealed Answ. The terming of baptizing sealing and the name of the Father Son and Spirit the Covenant name of grace are Mr. Cs. new-minted phrases if this be his meaning that every person rightly baptized whether he be elect or reprobate is sealed by God that is in Baptism assured of fellowship with the Trinity according to the new Covenant of Gospel grace I deny it if onely that he professeth his communion to be with them I grant it but this proves not that Covenant interest of infants who make no such profession intitles them to Baptism Again saith he That fellowship with Christ as head of the visible Church by the Spirit in the judgement of verity or charity such it is all but Covenant grace and blessing Answ. Be it so yet what this is to prove such fellowship to be a rule to baptize infants I see not Of old saith Mr. C. the consequent cause of the seal was grace in them and theirs but the antecedent cause was Gods Covenant grace to them and on them Gen. 17.7 8 9. Deut. 30.6 and so now that part of Abrahams Covenant was not then appliable to infants scil walk before me c. but yet that was then appliable I will be their God I will circumcise their hearts and that sufficed them as Deut. 30. the Analogy holds now Answ. What may be said to be a consequent cause I do not yet conceive the rule of Logick I have learned is that the cause is before the effect Yet what ever it be Mr. C. means though it might suffice for Circumcision it doth not for Baptism nor is that to be regulated by Analogy of Circumcision as is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 2 3. Yet again In a word the seal is a seal not of nor to the commandment but covenant this therefore is the main and principal in the application of it Answ. If Baptism be a seal it seems to me not a seal of or to the commandment or covenant but the profession of the baptized and therefore this is the main and principal in the application of it Yet more It is the covenant which hath the main instrumental force in the fruit of the initiatory seal and the application of it Ephes. 5.25.26 and why shall not the external interest in the covenant have chief influence into the external interest as well of the application of the initiatory seal Answ. I understand not what fruit of the initiatory seal he means nor what is the external interest in the Covenant the word Ephes. 5.25 26. Is meant of the word preached which is not instrumental to infants for any santification or cleansing their meant The want of Gods appointment is the reason of not applying Baptism to infants Once more By external interest in the Covenant persons so interested come to have external interest at least to the final causes of Baptism as Covenant mercy and blessing the Spirit Christ resurrection c. Tit. 3 8. and 1. Cor 12.12 13. 1. Pet. 3.21 And therefore as well so farre inrighted in the initiatory seal of it whether they are adult or infants Answ. 1. External interest in the covenant external interest in the final causes of Baptism are notions I understand not 2. Covenant mercy and blessing the spirit Christs resurrection are not final cause of Baptism for then when the end of Baptism is attained they should be effects of Baptism for the end in intention is the effect in execution But this is too absurd 3. An inrighting so far in the initiatory seal which intimates a man may have an inrighting so far to such a measure and no further is another new notion I understand not 4. If Mr. Cs. antecedent had sense or truth yet the consequence is to be denied no other interest external is inrighting to Baptism but that which is according to the institution Matth. 28.19 discipleship or profession of faith To the 8th Sect. I answer by denying that the Covenant priviledge of grace Evangelical hath such distinction of principal and less principal counter parties as Mr. means C. unless he understand by Christ the principal and the elect and true believers the less principal as Gal. 3.16 and that the Covenant priviledges of grace Evangelical belong to any other then the elect yet I grant the Covenant Gen. 17. and many priviledges of Divine grace which were not Evangelical did belong to many of the Israelites who made no good use thereof The Covenant Evangelical was never sealed personally to Ishmael That which Mr. C. dictates without proof about the everlasting covenant and the initial seal in its generical nature is answered here sect 80. and the point about the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed sect 50 c. and the non-inclusion of infants Matth. 28.19 under the term nation is shewed there and in the second part of this Review sect 9. The position of Mr. Cs. sect 9. may be granted though Acts 2.38 39. make nothing for it Sect. 10. Mr. C. proves nothing but that parents were to
they being enunciations in the indicative mood if meant so should bee false which to impute to God would asperse him with falshood and injustice which is horrendum dictu And in my apprehension it savours of ignorance which Mr. Rutherford saith pag. 91. Nor is it true that the promise is made to the aged upon condition of believing The promise is made to them absolutely whether they believe or not But the blessing of the promise and Covenant of grace is given and bestowed onely conditionally if they believe The promise is absolutely made it 's called conditional from the thing corditionally given For either I have lost my wits or else a conditional promise is a conditional pâ—oposition expressing something that shall be if some other thing bee put and sure a conditional proposition is so termed from the words not from the event A promise is a promise absolute or conditional as soon as the words are spoken long before the thing promised is given yea though it be never given The giving or not giving upon performing or not performing the condition may make the promise true or false determinately but not conditional or absolute I forbear to uncover any further Mr. Rutherfurds nakedness in this speech and reset him to Mr. Baxter to correct him for that speech nor is it true that the promise is not made to the aged upon condition of believing And as for his speeches of the saving of infants of believing parents dying in infancy and our giving evidence thereof there is so much said before of it especially against Mr. Baxter Sect. 73 74. and elsewhere that I need say no more here As for what he saith of our want of warrant to pray for them without their being in Covenant though it hurt not me who grant of so many as are elect that they are in Covenant yet I think I have a warrant to pray by a general command 1 Tim. 2.1 2 3. and in faith by a general promise Matth. 7.7 8. the knowledge of Gods goodness and the goodness of the thing asked In the rest of the Chapter Mr. Rutherfurd endeavours to find a way according to which infants of believers may be said to bee within Covenant and the words Acts 2.39 meant of them and their title to Baptism thence inferred for which end hee useth many words with distinctions which are vain without good sense or good consistency or any thing to his purpose Four ways he conceives infants of believers may be said to be in Covenant 1. In that God maketh the promise of a new heart to them but this he grants is true onely of the elect and not of all commanded to be baptized Acts 2.38 39. And pag. 86. he granted persons invisibly in Covenant without profession are not warrantably to be baptized 2. In that God promiseth forgiveness of sins and eternal life upon condition of repentance and faith Thus infants may be in the Covenant of grace but no otherwise then or rather not so much as professed unbelievers to whom it is tendred who yet are not to be baptized and if the promise be meant so Acts 2.39 it proves not a right to Baptism thence till the condition be performed which when infants declare they do I shall baptize them 3. That they are in Covenant because they are under the command for thus he speaks pag. 94. The Covenant must be considered in abstracto and formally in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners so they believe so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace and so it contains onely the will of precept In which he is mistaken 1. in that he saith the Covenant formerly in the letter is a simple way of saving sinners so they believe for such a speech is not the Covenant in any sense much less formally in the letter in abstracto such a speech as this men are saved if they believe or the way of saving men is upon condition of believing is not the Covenant sith it is not a promise but a Covenant is formally a promise or an aggregate of promises 2. In that he saith the Covenant formally contains only the will of precept whereas the Covenant formally contains not at all the will of precept the will of precept containing onely the command of what should be done by another but the Covenant is a promise of what the Covenanter will do the one is exprest in the imperative mood the other in the indicative nor is the will of precept in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners so they believe for such an expression is no command at all but a declaration of event 3. In that he saith so all within the visible Church are in the Covenant of grace which he seems to mean thus they all and they onely But sure either infants are not at all this way in the Covenant of grace who never hear the command propounded to them or if they be they are no more in it then the Americans out of the visible Church who never heard of Christ nor so much as professed unbelievers to whom the Gospel hath been preached and therfore this way infants have not right to baptism So that this speech of Mr. Rutherfurd hath as many of his expressions nothing but ignorance and impertinency 4. A person may be said to be in Covenant in that he is really covenanted and engaged by his consented profession to fulfil the Covenant as Mr. Rutherfurd speaks pag. 92. This way I grant intitles to Baptism but sure infants are not so in Covenant nor is the meaning so Acts 2.39 where the promise is Gods promise to us not our promise to God nor is this the Paedobaptists plea when they argue infants are in Covenant therefore to be baptized for they mean by being in Covenant that God hath promised to be a God to them as the seed of believers Gen. 17.7 And therefore Mr. Rutherfurd hath not yet shewed any way according to which infants of believers are intitled to Baptism by vertue of the Covenant of grace or from Acts 2.38 39. notwithstanding all his blooding of it to use his own term Let 's view what is in Ch. 14. Neither is it true that God saith persons should be circumcised because of Gods promise Gen. 17.7 Nor that women were circumcised in the males nor was Peter sent to baptize all the circumcised nor are infants to bee Baptized by the ground of Circumcision nor is there any thing Acts 2.38 39. that saith because the same promise is made to fathers and to children must infants bee baptised Neither do I know what Mr. Rutherfurd understands by Theological essence or formal effects nor do I conceive any truth or sense in Mr. Rutherfurds talk of Circumcision and Baptism being the same in the substance nature and Theological essence and in the formal effects much less that the Lord hath any such argument Gen. 17.7 And though I should grant all are to bee
work of charity not of institution or right by their birth to either But these things Mr. Cr. pleads against them 〈…〉 well as my self and both the doctrine and practise of Paedobaptists now is against the Ancients as well as mine Yea more in that they had a constant course of baptizing the catechized persons upon a solemn profession of faith and did in all baptisms except that of the Clinici that is sick persons baptized in their beds plunge the whole body or dip it so as to be under water which are now clean otherwise and things unknown among Paedobaptists So that as Bp. Usher in his answer to the â—esuites challenge in the article about praying for the dead p. 245. proves the Romanists to have rejected the ancient prayer for the dead because they pray not for Martyrs and others in bliss for their resurrection but for persons in Purgatory to be delivered thence so I may truly â—ay the Paedobaptists now have rejected the ancient infant Baptism sith they deny Baptism necessary to salvation or that it gives grace and they do it onely to believers infants by sprinkling or perfusion without mersion scarce to any but infants without any solemn course of catechising ordinarily in order to future Baptism and to infants ordinarily out of the case of danger of death upon pretence of a federal holiness by birth and ordinance of visible Churchmembership unrepealed unknown to the Ancients and therefore their doctrine and practise hath no patronage from them Mr. Cr. p. 98. saith that I cunningly alter the subject of the question when I say infant-sprinkling was not held of the whole Church and tels me that he and others do not say so Which intimates that hee and others desert the maintainance of sprinkling infants as ancient which diffidence is some argument that the late Assembly have forsaken the ancient way of Baptism by dipping having in the Directory determined sprinkling as sufficient and in the practise of many of them taken away the old Fonts more agreeâ—ble to antiquity and brought in little stone Basons near the Pulpit or Readers Pew like Popish holy water pots fit onely for the novelty of sprinkling after the Scottish modâ— Nâ—r is Mr. Crs. way of powring water on the face or dipping in part of the head any more the baptizing Christ appointed or antiquity used excâ—pt in the case of the Clinici 'T is true Gods ordinances are not destructive to nature who requires mercy and not sacrifice But this proves 〈…〉 Baptism should be omitted altogether and not the ordinance 〈◊〉 and people mocked as they are by the preacher that saith falsly he baptizeth the person when he doth onely sprinkle or powr water on the face or dip in part of the head SECT LXXXIX The testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Greek Church concerning Infant Baptism are examined and my exceptions made good against Mr Cragge Dr. Hammond Dr. Homes Mr. Marshal THe alledging of pseudo Dionisius the Areopagite and Clements Apostolical Constitutions is but to abuse the world with counterfeit names discovered by many learned Paâ—ists and Proâ—estants to be such and the like is to be said of Justin Martyrs forged testimony qu. 36. ad orthodoxos which are not rejected because questioned as Mr. Cr. seems to intimate but because they are by many strong evidences proved not to have been the Authors whose names they bear As for the evidence to matter of faâ—t they give that infants were baptized in that age â—n which they were written I do readily grant iâ— aâ—d before too yet think it no advantage â—or the present preâ—ended infant Baptism which is clean otherwise and upon other reasons aâ— particularly that the baptized infants obtained good things at the resurrection by Baptism but the unbaptized obtain not good things Nor is there a word in that to confirm the novel doctrine of the childrens right to Baptism as being in Covenant with the parents For neither are the parents there said to be believerâ— but the bringers nor by the parents faith are they said to have right to Baptism but by the faith of the bringers to obtain good things at the resurrection and therefore in vain doth Mr. Cr. thus endeavour to hide the deformity of that Authors doctrine which is no better then that which commonly Protestant Divines condem as Popish More honestly in this then Mr. Cr. doth Bellarmin tom 3. l. 2. de effectu Sacram c. 6. say Juâ—â—in in his Apology to Antoninus saith We obtain remissâ—â—â— of afore committed â—â—ns in water c. And before he had said that no man was brought to Baâ—tism unless he before believed Like things hee hath in his dialogue with Triphon And ch 8. alwayes in the Church the custome waâ— that those who would be Christians should first be made catechized persons and long enough instructed and not baptized unless instruâ—ted and firm and stable in faith citing to thiâ— end Justin in his Apology to Antoninus as showing the manners of the Church As for Irenaeus his testimony lib. 2. adv bar c. 39. it proves not infant Baptism For though it be true that Mr. Mede in his Diatribe on Tit. 3.5 say None I trow will deny that when the Apostle speaks of saving us by washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost hee speaks of Baptism yet it follows not that that the Apostle meant by regeneration Baptism nor is it likely sith the word regeneration is noâ— to be read by the washing which is regeneration as if it were by apposition but of regeneration as the Genitive possessive and the meaning is by the washing which signifies regeneration which is before the washing yet if it were so it proves not Irenaeus meant by renascuntur are born again are baptized sith he saith not are by washing born again as the Apostles phrase is Nor though it be granted that in Justin Martyr and others of the ancients to be regenerated is to bee baptized doth it appear that Irenaeus meant it so in that place unless it were proved it is so onely meant by him and the ancients Nor doth Irenaeus l. 1. c. 18. term Baptism regeneration as Dr. Homes p. 118. suggests but saith thus to the denying of Baptism of that generation which is into God But that indeed the word renascuntur are born again is not meant of Baptism is proved from the words and the scope of them For 1. the words are per eum renascunâ—ur by him that is Christ are born again and it is clear from the scope of the speech about the fulness of his age as a perfect master that by him notes his person according to his humane nature Now if then by him are born again be as much as by him are baptized this should bee Irenoeus his assertion that by Christ himself in his humane body infants and little ones and boyes and young men and elder men are baptized unto God But this speech is most manifestly false for
is so little as that in his Letter qu. 4. § 22. he confesseth they come not home distinctly to the baptizing of infants nor do they prove any unreasonableness or uncharitableness in our objections against their baptizing of them whom the Dr. affirms not either Christ or his Apostles to have baptized who had reason and charity enough to have done it if thâ—â— had judged iâ— fit to have been done That Matth. 8 6. is ridiculously applied to little children in age is demonstrate Review part 2. sect 17. Augustins saving credit in altero qui peccavit in altero and his reckoning infants baptized among believers is besides the Book I mean the Scripture and to be judged as no better then a fond conceit The lawfull bâ—ptizing of some professors of faith who prove hypocrites is no colour â—o baptize non professors of faith 'T is rightly done that that which contains no relation of Christs or his Apostles baptising infants is put by him among the more imperfect probations and such his alleging 1 Cor. 7.14 is already shewed to be That which the Dr. saith Sect. 2. that the Fathers with one consent testifie the receiving our infants to Baptism to bee received from the Apostles as the will of Christ himself is so manifestly false that the very first of the Fathers who makes mention of it Tertullian in his book of Baptism ch 18. disswades it and useth arguments against it and those arguments as well are against the believers infants Baptism as the unbelievers whereby it is evident he opposed the Baptism of any infants whereto might be a dâ—d the case of Nazianzen together with his judgement forementioned as evidences that infant Baptism was not the judgement and practice oâ— the universal Church for 1600. years The Dr. himself confesseth that Peter de Bruis and Henry his Scholler and the Petrobuciani and Henriciani that sprung from them were opposers of it and therefore the Dr doth very much excâ—ed truth in making it the judgment and practice of the universal Church for 1600 years The term son of the Church used by the Dr. 〈…〉 by â—anonists and others and it is usual to term the Church a Christians mother and by the Church the prelates are usually meant and much advantage made of it to keep Christians under the yoke of Bishops 〈◊〉 But it is no Scripture term in it the Elders Apostle 〈◊〉 â—ermed Fathers 1 Cor 4â— 5 all Christians Brethren and Sister 1 Cor 〈…〉 â—hurch being no other then a company of Bâ—ethen and Sisters it is very unfit to call the Church a Christians Mother and therefore 〈◊〉 willing not to be accounted a son of the Church nor do I acknowledge that the judgement and practise iâ— there were any such of the universal Church for 1600 years letting aside the Apostles of Christ haâ—h any force or authority over me nor do I fear the incurring of Gods displeasure by oppugning or contemning it but rather considering how the Apostle 2 Thes. 2.7 tels me that in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and the vain altercations about Easter in the 2d Century and many other mistakes and blemishes even in the Apostles times and much more after together with the prediction of the falling away 1 Tim. 4. â— the exceptions against the seven Churches of Asia 〈◊〉 our Lord Christ himself the imperfections that are in the writings of the first Fathers after the Apâ—stles the exceptions against the histories of the Church the imposing on the Church suppositions Treatises the coâ—rupting of authors I think iâ— the safest way to avoid Gods displâ—asure not â—o rest on the practise or judgement of the universal Church iâ— there were any such after the Apostles but onely on the writâ—ngs of the New Testament it being highly unreasonable as the Dr. saith that â—n institution of Christs such as each Sacrament is should bee judged of by any other rule whether the phanâ—es or reasons of men but either the word wherein the institution is set down oâ— the records of the practise of Christ or his Apostles in Scripture which comes home to the deciding 〈◊〉 câ—ntroversie of faith and manners and 〈…〉 to be obâ—erved and needs not the Drs records besides scripture however conserved or made known to us whether by unwritten tradition or in the writings of Fathers in which there is very much uncertainty but do deter men from adhering to this way as the inlet to many Popish and Prelatical abuses and errours yet deny not good use may be made of the ancient writers for clearing of many truths if they be read with judgement and do resolve to review what hath been brought for infant baptism by the Dr. out of other writers besides holy Scripture Sect. 3. the Dr. complains of mee as doing some injury to his Book in leaving out one considerable if not principal part viz. that which concerned the native Jewish children who were baptized as solemnly as the Proselytes and their chiâ—dren Ans. But by the Drs. leave in this no injury iâ— done him For however he mentioned Letter of Resol qu. 4 sect 5 6. Baptism as a known rite solemnly used among the Jews in the initiating of Jews and Proselytes into the Covenant yet both the words I allege Review part 2. sect 24. Out of his Letter q. 4. § 24. and all other passages I yet finde in his writings make the Christian baptism of believers and their infants to bee from the Jewish custome of Baptising Proselytes and children as the pattern basis or foundation of it no where the Baptism of native Jewes is made the pattern of Christian baptism though he say § 24. the baptism of the native Jews was the pattern by which the baptism of the Proselytes was regulated and wherein it was founded Yea the Dr. in his practical Catechism l. 6. sect 2. saith that as among the Jews when any Proselyte was received in among them and entred or initiated into their Church they were wont to use washings to denote their forsaking or washing off from them all their former prophane heathen practises which did not agree to the native Jews so by Christs appointment whosoever should be thus received into his family should bee received with this ceremony of water therein to be dipt i. e. according to the primitive ancient custome to be put under water three times And in his Letter qu. 4. § 37. so it is directly the thing that the Jewish practise in which Christ founded his institution hath laid the foundation of in baptising Proselytes and their children and to which the primitive Church conformed To which I may add that the proof which the Dr. brings for baptising of infants from Christs appointment is thus expressed qu. 4. § 22. receiving of Disciples was the receiving of Proselytes to the Covenant and faith of Christ a Disciple and a Proselyte being perfectly all one save onely that the latter denotes a comming from other nation c. which shews
be baptized and the truth of Mr. Crs. proposition those whom God did promise before the Law foretell under the Law actually receive inâ—o Covenant under the Gospel those God did appoint Churchmembers under the Gospel have no dependence upon â—aith or profession of faith then Mr. Baxters 20 arguments in his 2d dispute of right to Sacraments against Mr. Blake are falâ—e so that I need no more but to leave Mr. Cr. to be chastized by his magnified Doctor Mr. Baxter about this point and so enough of this section Sect. 4. He terms this an untruth that a person may bee in Covenant who iâ— not yet born or conceived as my iâ—stance of Isaac implies and saith It may bee confuted insito argumento by an argument inbred in the terms for he implies and that right that a person must be the subject of being in Covenant but none who is unborn and unconceived as Isaac Gen. 17.22 is a person But this is false he may be a person though not in present but future existence Those Ephesians who were elâ—cted before the Foundation of the world Eph. 1.4 were persons when elected for they were singular men though not then in actual being but future Mr. Crs. reasoning in this is like the reasoning of Adam Medlicot my neighbour in his book stiled Comfortable doctrine for Adams off-spring p. 99 Who will not have any particularly elected before the foundation of the world because then they were not any where men and p. 96. that none is absolutely elected till he believe because not in Christ and if not in Christ not in election and one is elected before another because in Christ before another And in his Honey found in the Lions Carkass p. 102. Although the purpose of election and reprobation was fully in God before time yet there could be no absolute or real election or reprobation of men and women until they had a real and absolute beeing Surely infants are in Covenant no otherwiâ—e then by Gods promise or mans vow or some such act in their behalf and this may be afore they are in being and consequently they may be in Covenant afore they are in actual being If I do not mistake Mr. Cr. both here Sect. 5. and in the 3d. Part Sect. 9. makes those with whom the Covenant was made Deut. 29.10 to have been in Covenant but doubtless the Covenant there was made with the posterity yet unbegotten v. 14 15. for no other can bee meant by him that was not with them that day all that were born or begotten then of the Congregation of Israel whether by nature or Proselytism being present as the words v. 10 11. shew and the end of the Covenant being to prevent the Apostasie of their posterity v. 18. therefore the unbegoâ—ten were in Covenant Nor is it a good argument A man is in Covenant ergo he is any more then a man is elected therefore he is these termes being termini diminuentes as Logicians speak and the verb est is in these speeches not noting the present existence of the subject of these propositions but of the act of the person who elects or covenants A child unbegotten may be said to be in a copy or a deed and so in covenant in respect of the assuring an estate to him whâ—n hee shall be existent But Mr. Cr. tels me 2ly It is a false suggestion that to have a Covenant made to one is to be in Covenant if by having the covenant made to for the phrase is somewhat strange â—e meant as he can mean nothing else a promise from God to be and be in covenant for a promise may be made to or of one long before he hath any being nor executed or performed till long after his being Then to be elected and â—o be in covenant would be both one then Mary Magdalen and Paul while a persecutor were in covenant nay from eternity to be in covenant would precede outward anâ— inward calling conversion profession and prerogative of birth then which nothing can be more ridiculous Answ. It is so far from being ridiculous that to me it is very plain to be in covenant precedes calling and to be in covenant is to have a covenant made to one and that a person is said to be in covenant with God by Gods promise to be his God though the man be not existent This is in my apprehension that which Paedobaptists mean by being in covenant for they usually say infants are in covenant which sure they mean of Gods promise to them for they prove it from Gen. 17.7 Acts 2.39 Nor can they mean it of any other being in covenant sith there is no act of any infant or any other for him that can denominate him in covenant with God in the time of the Gospel but Gods promise which is long before the being of those to or for whom it is made Tit. 1.2 Gal. 3.16 17. And thus two Kingdomes are said to be in league and covenant and they that are born many yeers after may be said to be in covenant by vertue thereof This being in covenant may be though the things covenanted be not executed or performed till long after the being in covenant as persons first enter into covenant and then perform And yet to be in covenant and to be elected would not be both one though attributed to the same persons siâ—h there is a different formal conceit of them election being an immanent act covenant a transient that from eternity this in time as to be justified and sanctified are not both one though to the same persons Nor is it any absurdity to say Paul was in coveâ—ant while a persecutor nor that to be in covenant precedes conversion sith iâ— is by vertue of being in covenant that one is converted Heb. 8.10 Rom. 11.26 27. As for being in covenant with God by prerogative of birth I know not of any such in the time of the Gospel Thirtdly saith Mr. Cr. It is of the same leven of untruth that Isaac was in Covenant when he was not yet born which his own quotation Gen. 17.21 proves against him For he saith he will establish a Covenant with Isaac in the future not that he does establish a Covenant in the present Answ. Surely Isaac was a child of the promise Rom. 9.8 9. and Jacob v. 11. afore they were born and â—â—nsequently in the Covenant and when God said he would establish his Covenant with Isaac he meant no other then the Covenant made with Abraham and therefore it was made to him then and he in Covenant though confirmed and performed after Mr. Cr. saith of my speech that a person is not actually received into Covenant till he is born and by some acts of his own engâ—geth himself to be Gods That it is founded upon the basis of this mistake that every Covenant must be expresly and actually mutual between both parties and talks after his foolish fashion as if it were an argument sophistically though
sillily drawn a negatione unius speciei ad totum genus But this is his meer cavil For my reason added receiving importeth an offering which is to be done by profession shews I inferred it otherwise Against which his exception is in these words as if more were to be required for admission of visible members into Covenant then was for admission or actual receiving of Christ as God man and Mediator to be visible head of the Church To which I reply When and how Christ was visible head of the Church is a point that requires much discussion To be head of the Church imports direction government c. To be visible head is to do these things discernably by reason from something sensible That he was visible head of the Church till he was manifest to Israel and how he was visibly head of it but by his preaching calling Disciples or how he was actually received as such but by believing on his name Joh. 1.11 or how he was admitted visible head but by Johns Declaration his Baptism of him the Spirits descent on him and his Fathers Proclamation of him or how any according to the Evangelical order are admitted visible members into Covenant but by their own profession of faith and thereupon being baptized I understand not But as for my speech I see not how it imports that which Mr. Cr. would have it to do but onely That being actually received into Covenant doth import an offer or tender on his part who is to be received which however it might be under the Law yet sure in the Gospel is no other way but by the persons own profession and this neither smels rank of Heresie nor Blasphemy but Mr. Crs. conceit as if under the Gospel some might be received into Covenant and admitted as visible members representatively by others who are their Proxies and engage for them they being but meer passives without any voluntary act of their own is but an innovation from what Christ or his â—postles appointed oâ— practised and his acknwledgement that it is not necessary that a Covenant be mutual that the Covenant Ezek. 36.26 Gen. 15.8 17.9 are such as wherein one party maketh the Covenant without mentioning the other but as patient serves me to prove what I assert before sect 45. against Mr. Bl. that a Covenant is not always a mutual agreement and that a person is said to be in Covenant in that a Covenant is made to him and this may be to persons not actually existent against Mr. Cr. in this Section Mr. Cr. to prove that God did promise to Abraham that infants should be in Covenant under the Gospel alledgeth Gen. 17.7 and thus aâ—gue He that makes an everlasting Covenant to Abraham and his seed after hiâ— in their generations proâ—â—â—ed that infants should be in Covenant undâ—r the Gospel God made an everlasting Covenant with Abraham and his seed after him Ergo. To this I said I had many exceptions for besides those to which Mr. Cr. here replies I might and do deny his major for another reason then I did before For now by his words p. 254. I perceive by being in Covenant under the Gospel he means an outward and visible Covenant like to which he hath p. 155. and p. 261. he calls this an impregnable rock which the Anabaptists will never overthrow that to be circumcised or baptized is all one as to be in visible Covenant and p. 158. he saith I clearly affirm with all the Reformed Churches that all in visible Covenant aâ—e subjects of Baptism and all subjects of Baptism are in visible Covenant I must confess Imagined that Paedobaptists if thâ—y would speak plainly could mean no other by the being of infants in Covenant under the Gospel but their being baptized and so their argument infants are in Covenant ergo to be baptized is but a meer tautology or worse they are baptized therefore they are to be baptized But I think I have sect 25. before shewed that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant as the Paedobaptists use it is either non ens or non-sense and I now deny this Proposition He that makes an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations promised that infants should â—e in covenant under the Gospel not onely for the reason given in the Dispute but also because I now perceive he means unless he still juggle as I fear he will in the use of the phrases being in covenant the covenant is made c. that God promised that infants should be baptized under the Gospel which is too ridiculous a sense to be put upon the promise of being a God to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 much unlike Christs exposition of the phrase Luke 20.38 39. and seems to be the attempt of men that have for their baby-sprinkling resolved to avow the grossest absurdities But to keep to the Dispute as it hath been printed I said the covenant Gen. 17.7 to Abraham and his seed after him in their generations if it be understood of the natural seed of Abraham the everlastingness of it was but for a time and that time afore the Gospel as in the next verse the possession oâ— Canaan is promised to be everlasting and yet the Jews now dispossessed of it Which Mr. Cr. grants and therefore must needs grant that the promise v. 7 though it be termed everlasting yet it is to be understood onely of a limited time as in other passages Exod. â—1 6 12.24 c. if meant of the natural seed of Abraham To this he replies How doth that follow If it had been with a particle of exclusion onely to the natural seed there might have bâ—en some colour of Dispuâ—e and yet without all controversie the everlastingness of it is extended even to the naâ—ural seed of Abraham for there hath been is and will be a succession of Jewish believers to the end of the world which proves that in his sense it 's false that the everlastingness of it was but for a time and that time afore the Gospel Answ. My meaning was plain enough that the Covenant as it was Evangelical that is as it contains a promise of the Spirit justification c. which is the onely Gospel Covenant I know if meant of the natural seed of Abraham that is the generality or body of them was but for a time afore the Gospel which I learned from our Lord Christ who foretold Mat. 21 43. that the Kingdome of God should be taken from them and the Apostle saith was accomplished Rom 11.20 that the branches meaning the Jewish people were broken off by unbelief and this is true though it be true also that there have been a succession of Jewish believers still they being a remnant onely according to the election of grace Rom 1â— 5 and thus they were not meerly Abarhams natural seed but also his spiritual to wit elect and true believers to whom I never denied the Covenant to be
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
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
demand if he plead it to his seed universally that 's false add so of the rest of your inferences look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you the same would Mr. Cotton give and as satisfyingly Answ. Mr Ms paraphrase of Mr. Cottons words is such as no Rule of Crammar will warrant the words being so expresse It the covenant of grace was given to Christ and in Christ to every godly man Gen. 17.7 And in every godly man to his seed where the same covenant of grace not an uncertain promise of any thing whatsoever is said to be given to every godly mans seed which is said to be given to Christ and to every godly man and in every godly man using the same pronounce which was used concerning Christ noâ— is it said that it might be pleaded by every godly man but it was given which in plain construction is meanâ— of the same grant which was made to Christ and to a godly man 2. Nor perhaps would Mr Cotton have owned this explication of his words 3. If he had they had not been true for every godly Gentile now cannot plead the same for his seed now which Abraham Isaac and Jacob and some other Isâ—aelites could then because God made such peculiar promises to them particularly to Abraham Gâ—n 17.4 5 6 7 8. in respect of their seed â—s he hath made to any beâ—ieving Gentiâ—e now For much of that he promised then was out of respect to the future comming of Christ from them which being accomplished the reason of those promises and of circumcision and other rites ceaseth And yet the promises were not then so universally to them and their seed but that God took himself not ingaged to be the God of many of them nor arâ— Gentile-believers seed now Abrahams seed till they believe as he did and therfore in explicâ—tion of Mr. M. there can be no good saâ—iâ—faction so as to verifie Mr Cottons words The other speech of Mr Cotton that God will have some of every godâ—y mans seed stand before him for ever he confesseth is not to be justified if it be meant in reference to election and everlasting life thaâ— every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved nor doth he think Mr Cotton meant so but for his part he thinks he only added to that promise made to Jonadabs children Jerem 35. that God would always beare a mercifull respect unto the posterity of his servants according to that promise Exo. 20.5 I wil shew mercy to thousands of them that love me and keep my commandements And that being his scope as he thinks it was I need not to have kept such a stir about it Ans. The words in the plainest sense they bare had that sense which Mr. M. counts unjustifiable nor can they be construed in such an indefinite manner as Mr. M. conceives the good promised being no lesse than standing before God for ever which how ever it allude to Ionadabs promise yet is not to be understood in the sense made to him nor in any other sense now than that of eternall salvation that I know and by his declaration should belong to some of every godly mans seed determinately So that what ever his scope were his words were likely to be a stumbling-block to many who are too much taken with his dictates and the place in which I examined them leading me to it and both Mr. Cottons letter to me acquainting me with his Dialogue of the grounds of Infant-baptism of which the supposed interest in the covenant is the chief and the desire I have to make learned men more cautelous in venting such passages as may occasion error knowing how Luthers unwary speeches were the seed of Antinomianism and other learned mens writings have misled most Divines adhering pertinaciously to leading men provoking me thereto I did and still do think it was necessary I should say what I said about those speeches Mr. M. tells me pag 116 You doe but lose time and waste paper in endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me viz. That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seede that the infants of believers are so within the covenant of grace as to be elected and to have all the spirituall privileges of the covenant belong to them But this he suspects to fasten on him against my own light from which I cleared my self Apolog. Sect. 9. He then interprets his own words of infants being within the covenant of grace as visible professors are quà visible which speech is shewed false before they are to be accounted to belong to God as well as their parents viz. by a visible profession they are made free according to Abrahams Copy viz. in a visible priviledge for their posterity But he leaves out those passages which I alledged saying The covenant of sâ—lvation is comâ— to his hous that in the first coÌ„clusion it 's said The covenant is the same which he means of saving graces and then saith and children belong to IT which can demonstrate no other than the same covenant that is made a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham To which I might add that in his Sermon page 40. he saith The text not onely shewing that they are within the covenant but also that a right to baptism is the consequence of being within the covenant which covenant is made by him the covenant of salvation pag. 16 and in his Defence pag. 88. We are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made and hence infers the salvation of infants of believers dying in infancy which were frivolous if he did not conceive Gen. 17.7 to promise salvation to believers infants and page 98. counts it absurd that in a covenant of grace temporall blessings should be ratified by the seal of it So that either M. M. heeded not his own speeches or confounded things much different or said and unsaid the same thing if that were not his meaning which I conceived And I must still professe that his setting down first distinctly the identity of the covenant consisting in saving graces and then affirming Infants of believers to belong to it and not understanding it of the same Covenant hath the shew of juggling tending to deceive not to instruct the Reader There are more speeches produced by me to shew that if he did speak consonantly to other Writers and sayings he meant as I interpreted his words two of which he chuseth to vindicate one the proposition of the Directory The promise is made to belivers and their seed which how frivolously it is interpreted by Mr. G. and Mr. M. is shewd in my Apol. Sect. 9. in my Addition to my Apol. to Mr. Bailee Sect. 3. To which I add that in the Assemblies Confession of Faith it is said ch 7. art 3 that in the covenant of grace God promiseth to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his holy Spirit ch
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
to wit rigtheousness and life eternal by faith yea that they are larger now no intensively in respect of the thing promised as if a greater degree of righteousness and eternal life were promised now then was then but extensively in respect of the people to whom the Gentiles now being calâ—ed and tâ—at moâ—e amply thâ—n the Jews nor do I or any thing I say excluâ—e believers children out of the Covenant But I still say the Covenant of grace was no made then universally to a Believer and his natural seed nor now but onely to the elect of them Yet this is not an exâ—lusion of any in particular from the Covenant of grace nor an inclusion but onely a suspension of any determination of either who are elect and who not being onely known to God And therefore to Mr. Cs. question why are belieâ—ers children then excluded the Covenant which injuriously insinuates and I did exclude them I say let him answer it that doth so And thâ—ugh I grant that our priviledges now are inlarged in respect of the administration of the Covenant in that the Gospel is preached to more nations and more clearly and confirmed by the bloud of Christ c then before â—hrists comming which â—s my meaniâ—g in that speech yet it neithâ—r follows thaâ— I count that administration of the Covenant initiatory seal which is Mr Csâ—erms â—erms not mine as sâ—ch to their children was no priviledge to there must be such a like priviledge and not straâ—â—ned at least not wholly excluded as that of a like though Mr. Câ— say not the same but a like administration of the initiatory Covenant-seal to in-churched believers children now as Mr. C. in his gibberish speaks And though I say we have nothing in lieu of Circumcision but Christ come in the flesh yet I do not say nor need I that Baptism is no priviledge to believers now but I deny it to be a priviledge in lieu of Circumcision and say that as Mr. C. grants it a priviledge to believers that now they have not that manner of initiation by circumcision so it is a priviledge to them that they have no manner of initiation in lieu of it What he saith he hath shew'd before from Ez. 37.25 26 27. is examin'd before Sect. 5. Mr. C. saith Baptism is a seal of the Covenant no bare badge of Christianity as some have said albeit the more judicious of our opposites yeild this that the Covenant of grace is said properly to be sealed in Baptism and that Baptism since Christs incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into covenant with him Answ. It is true that I said Exam p. 149. the Covenant of grace is sealed properly in Baptism but Mr. C. might have taken notice that 1. I used not this phrase as mine but as Mr. Ms. 2. That I did yeild this but three lines before with this caution Baptism seals the love of God in some sense properly 3. That not long after I say that in exactness of speech it seals no grace properly taking it for propriety of speech but improperly because metaphorically as sealing is taken for assuring 4. I say as properly notes propriety of right or title or possession in opposition to anothers or that which is alien it seals as much the second as the first grace And indeed this is my meaning that though in propriety of speech Baptism may not be said to be the seal of the Covenant of grace properly sith it is but a metaphor or term translated from another thing and so shews not what the thing is but what in some respect it is like to yet it may bee thus termed the seal of the Covenant of grace properly that is as the seal of a deed assutes the thing conveyed in it to him that hath propriety in it so Baptism in that thereby we put on Christ doth signifie to the true Believer that he hath union and communion with him and that he hath thereby a propriety of right to righteousness and life by Christ according to the Covenant of grace But this doth no whit contradict what I have disputed before sect 31. against Mr. Ms. and others doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace Nor did I use the words that Baptism since Christs incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into Covenant with him Exam. p. 83. as mine own expression but as Mr. Ms. though I granted the thing meant by it Yet had I so said of my self it had not been for Mr. Cs. turn who will have it a seal of Gods Covenant to us whereas those words as I yeild them rather import it to be our seal whereby we enter into Covenant with God and engage to him which is the most genuine use of Baptism and in that respect rightly termed a badge of Christianity But Mr. C. would prove it a seal of the Covenant in another sense thus And it appears so saith he 1. in that it agrees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal Col. 2 11 12. which speech is ambiguous and yet in no sense I conceive true It is doubtfull whether he mean that to be the initiatory seal is the essentials of Circumcision and of Baptism but this sense is false For to be a seal is not essential either to the one or the other the circumcision of the Sichemites was circumcision though it were no seal to them of the Covenant of Abraham and Simon Magus his baptism was baptism though it were no seal to him of the Covenant of grace much less is it of the essence of either to bee initiatory for if there were or might be another initiatory seal as doubtless there might be if God had so appointed it yet circumcision and baptism had not been circumcision and baptism now what may be or not be without the ceasing of the thing to be is but an accident to it not of the essence of it Besides to be the initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace doth more truly agree to the spirit of God then to either of them Or whether he mean that they agree in those things which are the essentials of each but that is more palpably false for it is essential to Circumcision that the fore-skin be cut off but that is not essential to Baptism there may bee Baptism without it Nor is there a word Col. 2.12 that either expresseth this thing or yeilds any ground for proof of it as is shewed before by me here § 81. As vain is that which follows whence baptized Gentiles are said to be of the circumcision Phil. 3. and Jews said to be baptized 1 Cor. 12. For neither are Gentiles Philip. 3.3 termed the circumcision because they were baptized nor the Jews said to be baptized 1 Cor. 12.13 because they were circumcised or because of the agreement of these in the essentials But the converted Gentiles not all that were baptized but onely those who were