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
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
which Mr. Dickson thus paraphraseth if they which are of the Law or which seek righteousness by works were the sons of Abraham and heirs of life and partakers of righteousness then faith should be made void and the promise vain But this is absurd Therefore they which are of the law are not heirs but alone believers are sons of Abraham and heirs of life and righteousness The 16. v. doth yet more plainly express that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 As Evangelical is made are believers onely Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that onely which is of the law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all Upon which saith Mr. Dickson with that uery counsel God appointed that the inheritance should be of faith that it might agpear to be of grace or by grace Therefore onely and all believers uncircumcised and circumcised alike are heirs The inheritance is of faith and by grace by the Counsel of God that the promise might be sure to all the â—eed not onely to that which is the seed of Abraham by the law of nature and hath faith also that is the circumcised Jewes believing but also to that seed which is not by the law of nature or the flesh but onely by the faith of Abraham that is the uncircumcised believing Gentiles Therefore unless suspending the promise of righteousness and the inheritance upon the condition of the law to be performed we would make it unsure and uncertain the whole seed of Abraham or all and onely believers circumcised and uncircumcised are heirs by faith with father Abraham who according to faith is father of all us believers of Jewes and Gentiles Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.16 Paul manifestly devides into two members that which in general he had said of the whole seed of Abraham that is believers both circumcised and uncircumcised Pisc. Sch. to all the seed that is of Abraham to wit all believers Diodati to all namely to the spiritual seed according to the faith of which God intended to speak in that excellent promise I will be thy God and of thy seed after the Gen. 17.7 Lastly the Apostle interprets the promise Gen. 17.5 That Abraham should be the father of many Nations thus that the Gentiles should be his seed by faith v. 17. as it is written I have made thee a father of many Nations on which Master Dickson By force of the divine promise promising that he should be the father of many Nations Abraham embraced for sons all believers to be ingrafted into his seed and so in vertue of the promise as it were begat or conceived believers to himself as sons promised The new Annot on Rom. 4.17 I have made thee a Father See Gen. 17.5 Not of those only that should issue from him according to the flesh but also of those among all nations that by faith should be adopted and received into his spiritual family 5. The texts also which are Gal. 3.7 16 â—9 and 4 28. Are very pregnant to the same purpose that the seed of Abraham to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical is made are only true believers or elect persons The first of these places is that which is asserted in terms Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham where the speech is equipollent to an exclusive For having v. 2.5 told them they must have the spirit and be Abrahams children either by the works of the law or by faith and determined that they had not the spirit by the works of the law but by faith supposing that they who are children have received the spirit as it is v. 14. it plainly followes that they only are the children of Abraham which are of faith even as Protestant divines conclude from Gal. 2.16 that justification is by faith only because the disjunction being sufficient justifycation is either by faith or by works and works excluded it followes we are justified by faith onely And so Mr. Dickson conceives that the Apostles argument is Gal. 3.7 They onely who are of the faith or who seek to be justified by faith and not by works are the children of Abraham therefore the only reason of justification is by faith Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.7 yet you know that is to say this doctrine is clear and resolved upon amongst Christians that the true children of Abraham comprehended in the covenant which God made with him and his posterity are not the carnal Jewes which are borne of him or joined to him by circumcision and by professing of their ceremonies but all such as according to Abrahams example do renounce all confidence in their own proper works and put it wholly in Gods promises and grace in Christ as Abraham was made a father example and paragon of faith to all those to whom the covenant made with him was to appertain The like is the determination of Mr. Perkins that I may omit others who in his com on Gal. 3.7 Saith the promise and election of God makes properly children of Abraham and that the true mark of the child of Abraham is to be of the faith of Abraham and that profession of Abrahams faith and descent from Isaac are not sufficient to prove men children of Abraham without following of his faith The texts Gal 3.16 29. have been considered before and our inferences vindicated from Mr. Sidenhams evasions The other to wit Gal. 4.28 Speaks to the same purpose to which the fore alleaged texts do Now we Brethren as Isaâ—c was are children of the promise that is we of whom the Jerusalem which is above is mother that is as Beza Annot. adde v. 26. we who embraced Christ adde v. 27. he shewes the true sons of Abraham are born spiritually by the Gospel adde v. 28. are children of the promise that is that seed to which pertaineth that promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed out of all which it appears that as the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee was Evangelical it was made only to the elect of God and true believers and they only are Abrahams seed there meant 6. I shall next adde the consideration of that text Rom. 9.6 7 8. Whâ—re the Apostle speaks thus not as though the word of God hath taken none effect For they are not all Israel which are of Israel neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed I suppose it will not be denyed that this passage is an answer to an objection occasioned by the intimating of the rejection of the Jewes from being Gods people v.
of me to say That the promise of saving benefits was made to infants that were not â—lest Answer My answer is the same now that it was then and having upon occasion of this charge reviewed the notes of the dispute which though very imperfect I have yet by me I find not but that in the greatest part of the dispute I answered Mr. B. rightly though he have most shamefully and unbrotherlike misrepresented me to the world and made a noyse in the world as if he had driven me to gross absurdities which having acquitted my self from in my Prâ—cursor Sect. 17. he replies nothing to that Section which I take to be a tacite confession of his unworthy abusing of me And I do think it necessary to tell the world that I find so little of brotherly love to me or common ingenuity in his insolent carriages towards me at the Dispute and his relations of me and of the Dispute in print that I think I should have found better dealing from a Jesuite than from him And though I take him to be a godly man and an excellent Preacher and Writer in practicall points yet I find him to be but a superficiall Disputer and a slight interpreter of Scripture But to the point Four things Mr. B. it seems mislikes in my answer 1. That I said That the promise of saving grace is not conditionall To declare my self more fully it is requisite I should shew what promise of saving grace I make not conditionall There is the saving grace of redemption regeneration justification remission of sins adoption glorification The condition imagined as presupposed to the promise of saving grace that is to the fulfilling of it is either the well using naturall abilities as foregoing the promise of conversion and regeneration or faith and repentance as foregoing justification remission of sins adoption glorification The promise of saving grace may be said to be conditionall in respect of these later saving graces and the conditions mentioned yet in respect of the promisers intention and act in the event certain necessary and infallibly to be performed by the person to whom the promise is made and in this sense I grant the promise of saving graces conditionall that is that God hath promised to none the saving graces of justification remission of sins adoption but on condition of true repentance and faith nor glorification but on condition of perseverance therein yet that these conditions are not uncertain in the event or left to the persons to whom the promise is made to do by themselves but by Gods intention and actings certainly to be accomplished or it may be said to be conditionall that is â—o as that the condition of any of these graces is made the well using naturall abilities or that the conditions of these later saving graces are uncertain in the event notwithstanding the promisers intention and acting and thus I deny the promise of saving grace to be conditionall More briefly I deny the promise of regeneration and conversion to presuppose some well using our naturall abilities or that justification remission of sins adoption glorification are promised upon condition of our repentance faith obedience perseverance left by God to be performed by us and not promised as certain in the event which is the Arminian sense yet deny that the promise of justification remission of sins is absolute so as that God promiseth that an elect person shall be justified or have remission of sins without a fore faith which is charged on the Antinomians The second thing which Mr. B. mislikes in my Answer is That though some parts of the Covenant be conditional yet it is all together that is called the Covenant But this speech if it be liable to exception Mr. B. must except against the holy Ghost who doth expresly call all together the covenant Heb. 8.10 saying This is the Covenant which I will make and having recited all together he adds v. 13. in that he saith a new covenant And the like is Heb. 10.16 The third thing misliked in my answer is And the leading promise being noâ— conditionall therefore the covenant is not conditional But there is no just cause of excepting against this sith â—t is usuall and that according to a Logick Rule to determinate from the more famous part or chief part as a visible Church is called Holy or of Saints even in Scripture 1 Cor. 1.2 from the better part a field of corn where is much tare Do not Paedobaptists usually call the covenant Gen. 17. the eovenant of grace though there be other promises than of saving grace and what promise is made of saving grace there is made under the covert of words expressing other things And to shew that there is reason for what I said I urge 1. That the promise of writing the Lawes of God in the heart Heb. 8.10 is not onely the leading promise but also it is the comprehensive promise including or inferring all the rest for therefore God will be a God to them be mercifull to their unrighteousness because he will write his Lawes in their heart to those and those onely he promiseth the later to whom he promised the former Yea it seemeth to be the principall thing God aimed at in the new Covenant to assure that he would not write his lawes in stone as he did before but write them in their heart 2. That where Lukeâ— 72 73. he puts it to be in this which I take to be absolute that he would give to us that being delivered from the hand of our enemies without fear we should serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of our life v. 73 74 75. The fourth thing misliked in my answer is that I said That it was a gross palpable error of Mr. B. to say that the promise of saving benefits was made to Infants that were not elect If I understand Mr. M. he counted it a gross error when he disclaimed this asserâ—ion That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seed Defence of his Sermon pag. 116. and Mr. G. when in his Vindic. Pâ—â—dob p. 12. he said of this conclusion that infants are taken into covenant with their parents in respect of saving graces You know the conclusion in that sense is so manifestly against Protestants principles and experience that no Protestant can hold it But Mr. B. it 's like will not be convinced by mens sayings let us try what we can do by Arguments 1. The promise of saving benefits is made onely to those to whom saving benefits are bestowed But to elect infants onely they are bestowed Ergo. The Major is manifest to them that acknowledge God to be true and faithfull it being manifest falshood and unfaithfulness to promise and not to perform But it is certain by experience and Scripture that God saves none but the Elect Therefore it is a gross and palpable error as charging God with lying to say that his
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
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
is manifest in the posterity of David Josiah and others nor is any whit to the point of infants visible Churchmembership which may be without it and that may be without it Nor is Mr. Bs. inference good In Psal. 37.26 there is a general promise to or declaration of the righteous that his seed is blessed and then they are Churchmembers For the Text neither speaks generally of any righteous man but of him that is mercifull and lendeth and the v. before sheweth it plainly to be meant of outward blessing as in freedome from extream want of bread and the like which must have its limitations that it may be true there 's not a word of their infant visible Churchmembership There 's yet a reserve of Mr. B. which he thus marshals In Isa. 61.8 9. it is promised I think of Gospel times I will make an everlasting Covenant with them and their seed shall be known among the Gentiles and their offâ—spring among the people all that see them shall acknowledge them that they are the seed which the Lord hath blessed And cap. 62.12 They shall call them the holy people the redeemed of the Lord and thou shalt be called sought out a city not forsaken Gospel promises then extend to people and cities whereof infants are a part Isa. 65.23 they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their off-spring with them This is plain and full and durable Answ. Be it so yet is it all impertinent to Mr. Bs. purpose If Isai 61.8 9. be a promise of a thing to be fulfilled in Gospel times yet it cannot be meant of infants sith it is affirmed that the seed shall be known among the Gentiles that is saith Mr. Gattaker in his Annot. They shall so grow and multiply thrive and prosper that they shall become very conspicuous Matth. 5.14 16. and that it shall evidently appear to all that see them that there goeth a blessing of God along with them Acts 5.13 Which are spoken of the Apostles and their preaching not of infants and their Churchmembership Isai 62.12 is said of Zion and Jerusalem v. 1.11 and is thus by Mr. Gattaker in his Annot. paraphrased And men shall call them to wit Sions sons or those that belong to her and shall now again people her vers 5. The holy people the redeemed of the Lord Such as God by rescuing and delivering them out of the hands of so powerful adversaries in so strange a manner hath shewed that he owneth for his Sought out or sought unto or sought after as one had in high estimation and regard whom out of respect and regard men repair and resort unto See Psal. 111.2 Contrary to that which was formerly said of thee in the time of thy low and dejected estate Jer. 30.17 A City not forsaken as she seemed to be formerly in the time of her captivity See v. 4. Which shews these things are meant of the Jews safety and honour after their return from captivity not of infants visible Churchmembership under the Gospel Yet if it were a prophesie of the Gospel times it followes not infants shall be visible Churchmembers because Cities comprehend infants For in the Gospel sense Nation House City comprehend onely believers and not infants of believers as such as appears from these and other texts Gal. 6.10 Ephes. 2.18 19. 1 Pet. 2.5 9. Isa. 65.23 is a prophesie of the welfare of the Jews after their return from captivity as v. 21 22. before shew and the meaning is as Mr. Gataker Diodati and others expound it they shall not bring forth children as formerly to be consumed by war pestilence and such evils because Gods blessing which makes rich healthy safe prosperous is with them and their children which sense is quite wide from Mr. Bs. conceit of a law of infants visible Churchmembership in the time of the Gospel He yet adds What is necessary to be said in answer to the common objections as that experience tels us all the seed of the righteous are not blessed with the like I suppose already done in my Book of Baptism All the seed of the righteous are blessed though not all with that blessing which cannot be lost and cast away by themselves when they come to age Answ. What is said in his Book of Baptism will be examined when I come to it For present it is but Mr. Bs. dictate that all the seed of the righteous are blessed the indefiniteness of the Scripture expressions the matter being contingent experience and the Apostles exposition of the promise Gen. 17.7 Rom. 9.6 7 8. are against it yet if it were true â—t followes not it must be visible Churchmembership it might be some other blessing of which God hath store yea it is certain it cannoâ— be visible Churchmembership sith abortives and still born infants though the seed of the righteous are never so blessed and the children of the holy seed Ezra 9.2 begotten on prohibited women were to bee cast out of the Jewish Church Mr B. adds If you say that the word seed doth not necessarily include infants I answer infants are part of the seed of the righteous yea all their seed are first infants If therefore God have made general promises as to age and person who is he that dare limit it without just proof that indeed God hath limited it Doth God say that the seed of the righteous are not blessed till they come to age If he pronounce the seed blessed they must be blessed when they are first such a seed And if any one age might be more included then another one would think it must bee that wherein they are so meerly the seed of such as that they stand not on any distinct account of their own actual faith or unbelief For the seed of the righteous as such have a promised blessing But the seed of the righteous turning themselves to unrighteousness do turn from that blessing and become accursed Answ. Mr. B. not holding children in the womb unborn to be visible Churchmembers all this may be retorted they are part of the seed of the righteous all their seed are such how dare then Mr. B. limit the general promises to infants born The seed is blessed and so must be visible Churchmembers when they are first such a seed which is as soon as they are conceived in the womb then they stand not on any distinct account of their own actual faith or unbelief What Mr. B. replies to this will answer himself However I deny that without just proof it is to be so limited I limit the promises that if God pronounce the seed blessed they must be blessed when they are first such a seed for then if the blessing be justification glorification they must be justified glorified afore they believe or are obedient which Mr. B. condemns in Antinomians And if infants stand not on any distinct account of their own actual faith they are not Christian visible Churchmembers for all such are in
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
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
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
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
are in that respect Abrahams seed M. Drew adds But yet further 3. T is plain in the Gospel that faith maketh a believer the child of Abraham yea and a surer heir to the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed then carnal descent from Abrahams Loyns doth Abraham had 2. seeds one descending from Ishmael and onother from Isaac all that came from Abraham were not children Rom. 9.7 But in Isaac shall thy seed be called Isaac was his special seed and typed out his believing seed under the Gospel for ver 8. they which are the children of the flesh these are not that is not in so peculiar a manner the children of God as the believing seed for the children of the promise are the seed the seed by way of eminencie that is the prime seed and Mark I pray you how the same Apostle explaines and applyes this to our purpose Gal. 4.28 29. The Galatians were Gentils but being believers we saith the Apostle as Isaac was are the children of promise and so the special seed of Abraham the Galatians were no more of Abrahams natural seed then we are but by faith they became his prime seed and heirs apparent to all the promises as Isaac was who is said in the next ver to be born after the spirit as well as Gospel believers are And sirs shall we make the Covenant curtail and narrow to Abrahams prime seed and halve the promises to them when they are full and large to his worser seed The Appostle will not suffer this Gal. 3.29 If ye be Christs then are ye Abrahams seed and heirs according to the promise which surely must needs be according to the full extent of that promise made unto our Father Abraham for if it be not ours so fully as it was his then we are not heirs according to the promise if our seed be exempted it fals much short of what was said to him I will be thy God and the God of thy seed And mark friends I beseech you that was Gospel which was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 In thee shall all Nations be blessed not onely his natural seed that was but one Nation but all that were of the faith shall be blessed as children of what nation soever ver 7. For faith was imputed to Abraham in uncircumcision Rom. 4.10 11. to this end that he might be the Father of all them that believe though not circumcised And truely I wonder since the Gâ—spel is so clear that believers are Abrahams children that any man dare rob them of any comfort or priviledge wherewithall he was invested by that promise to which they are more sure heirs then any of his natural seed as I think is made plain to the easiest of your capacities Answer the thing to be proved is that to the natural seed of Gentile believers God hath promised to be a God To prove which divers places are brought which do manifestly refute it That of Ro. 9.7 8. determines that all the natural children of Abraham were not the seed to whom God had promised to be God but that in Isaac his seed should be called And the same is determined Gal. 4.28 that Isaac was the child of the promise and not the son of the bondwoman and that no child of any man is a child of the promise but he that is born after the Spirit And Gal. 3.29 is meant of those onely that are the sons of God by faith in Christ ver 26. and from the Gospel mentioned Gal. 3.8 in thee shall all nations be blessed he infers ver 9. onely of believers so then they that are of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham And Rom. 4.10.11 Abraham is said to be the Father of believers or as it is ver 12. those that walk in the steps of the faith of our Father Abraham which he had yet being uncircumcised Wherefore I may much more justly wonder that learned Protestants who so commonly say that elect persons onely are in the Covenant of grace from Rom. 9.7 8. when they dispute against Arminians should yet have the face to avouch that every believers yea though but by profession a believers natural child whether elect or a believer or not is in the Covenant of grace made to Abraham Gen. 17.7 when they dispute for paedobaptism though by such doctrine they make the word of God to fall it being not true of Ishmael Esau and thousands of others of both of Abrahams and other believers seed God hath not nor will be a God to them T is true believing Gentils are heirs of the promise made to Abraham of blessing or justification by faith as he had but it is false every believer is heir of every priviledg Abraham had none besides him is Father of the faithfull as Abraham or hath Gods promise to his natural seed as Abraham had to his spiritual yea or to his natural None hath the promise that in his seed all nations of the earth should be blessed Acts 3.25 nor any that his posterity should be graffed in again as it is assured to Abrahams seed Rom. 11.28 29. The imagined priviledge that God would be the God of his naturall seed was never promised to Abrahams natural posterity as such Yet it is false that a believers child is a more sure heir of the promise then any of Abrahams natural seed For though God hath not promised to be a God to all Abrahams posterity yet he hath to some which I know not that he hath done to any believing Gentils natural child M. D. doth but Calumniate by insinuating as if we curtaild the promise robbed believing parents of any comfort or privilege wherewith Abraham was invested by that promise Gen. 17.7 perverting the text as if when God said he would be a God to Abraham by Abraham were meant every believer and when he saith he will be a God to Abrahams seed it were meant of every belivers natural seed whether believers or not About which he and other paedobaptists particularly the Assembly at Westminster in the Directory about baptism do but abuse people and lead fond parents who swallow down Preachers sayings without Scripture proof into a fools paradise by telling them that the promise is made to a believer and his seed that God will be a God to a believer and his child and that Infants of believers dying in their Infancy are saved by the parents faith and by this there is assurance of their salvation But Master Drew once more urgheth Rom. 11 17. that the term graffing shews believing Gentils come in with their seed or twigs that grow from them else surely they cannot be said to be graffed in as the Jews were cut off But I have so fully proved the ingraffing to be by giving faith according to election and that none but elect persons are ingraffed according to the Apostles meaning and that ingraffing is into the invisible Church in my Ample disquisition being the first part of
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
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
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
outward and reputative adoption though not saving graces belongs to all Besides what ground hath Mr. G. to call this promise the Gospel-covenant Rom. 1.16 17. Gal. 3.8 9 c. the Gospel-covenant is The just shall live by faith it is that which contains promise of sanctification remission of sins c. Hebrews 8 10 11 12. 10.16 17. Matthew 26.28 The everlasting covenant that hath the sure mercies of David Isaiah 55.3 Acts 13.34 38 39. Hebrews 13.20 and of which Jesus is the Surety or Mediator Hebrews 7.22 12.24 what a mockage then is this of people to tell them the Covenant of grace is made to their children and the Cospel-covenant is extended to them and that God hath promised to be their God and that they are confederate with their parents and yet in fine all that they dare assert is God hath promised to the seed of believers an external reputative adoption though not real such chaff they catch their auditors with But is this promise that God will settle his Church in Abrahams family and separate them from the rest of the World as light from darkness as Mr. G. expresly makes it indeed the Gospel-Covenant I dare freely say it is Jewish Anti-evangelical directly opposite to the Gospel-covenant For the Gospel-covenant is That God would bless all Nations in Abraham through faith Gal. 3.8 9. Gentiles as well as Jews yea the Gentile-believers instead of the Jews broken off by unbelief If then this be the Gospel covenant I will be the God of thy seed that is in Mr. Gs. sense I will separate Abrahams family from the rest of the world to be my Church then the Church under the Gospel covenant is not Catholick contrary to the article of the Creed and so the Gospel-covenant continues the middle wall of partition But perhaps Master Geree helps the matter in that which followeth For the second thing saith he the extent of this privilege though there were something in it peculiar to Abraham yet was it not limitted to him alone but those that were of Abraham inherited his promise to have God their God and the God of their seed As what was said to Joshua Josh. 1.5 I will not leave thee nor forsake thee was not bounded to his person but applicable to all conscientious Israelites yea to all Christians in Gods way and work as the Apostle applieth it Heb. 13.5 So this privilege or the Covenant to have God the God of their seed is to be applyed to all Israelites yea to all of any nation that have his faith and tread in his steps they that do the work of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the Covenant Answ. Mr. G. Will have the promise I will be a God to thy seed to promise the settling of the Church in Abrahams family separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness if this be so how can it be a promise to another nation that their children should be adopted outwardly and reputatively For if by this promise Abrahams natural posterity have a privilege whereby they are sethis promise is common to other nations with them But saith he The promise parated from all other nations surely it s no better than a contradiction to say to Joshua Iosh. 1.5 was not bounded to his person Heb. 13.5 which I grant nor do I doubt but promises made to Abraham David Joshua c do belong to all true believers where the holy Ghost doth so expound them and where the promise is of a thing which other Scriptures do clear to belong to them But there is no such thing in the promise of Gen. 17.7 Master Geree brings nothing but his own assertion to prove it nor do I know any thing brought by any else but what the Author of the little book intitled Infants baptism proved lawful by Scripture printed Anno 1644. hath Who thus argued That which was promised to Abraham as a believer is promised to every believer But God promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed as a believer Ergo To which I answered if as be taken reduplicatively so as that the meaning be under that formal consideration to him being a believer and to every one being a believer as to him I deny the Major it was not made to him as a believer simply under that consideration but though it were made upon his faith as a motive of making that covenant with him yet not under that formal consideration simply as a believer so as that the covenant should be said to be made to every believer as to him As in like manner though Peter Matthew 16 18 19 had the promise of building the Church and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and of binding and loosing conferred on him by reason of his confession of Christ verse 16 yet every one that confesseth Christ as he did hath not that that promise If any ask how it was made to Abraham I answer so far as concerns the spiritual part it is cleer from Romans 4 11 12 16 18 that it was made to him as Father of believers and in that construction though it belong to Gentiles yet it belongs onely to believing elect Gentiles Romans 9 7 8 Galatians 3 29 or to Christ whether personal or mystical verse 16. But that it belongs not in that sense no not to all or any either of Jews or Gentiles who are not elect is apparent from Romans 9 7 8 no meer formal professor can lay claim to it As for the promise of outward privileges as to be of the visible Church to have the Ordinances of Gods worship so the promise is made to Abraham as a natural Father of his inheriting posterity by Isaac and to that seed by Isaac which was to inherit in Abrahams family and to that natural seed which God would bring out of Egypt and settle in Canaan and this was but unto the time of reformation as it is termed Heb. chap. 9. vers 10. Now that those words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed should be expounded thus I will be the God of every Gentile believer either in profession or reality that his natural posterity should be Gods visible Church or visible Church-members hath not the least intimation in Scripture but much against it nor can be brought by any shew of right construction to be the meaning For I would know under which term of these thee or thy seed every such natural childe even an infant shauld be meant under thy seed they must say but the Scripture placeth believers themselves and those only reall believers under that term as is proved before and other places speak to like purpose John 8.39 Matth. 3.9 Luke 19.9 therefore without addition to the text believers natural seed are not there placed Nor were the promise true in Mr. Gerees sense For God doth not make good the promise in that sense to every believer and his
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
his defence in the third part of it referring the Reader to what of that or any other is already dispatched taking in somewhat of Master Blakes and some others by the way and then to examine such parts of Mr. Cobbets Iust Vindication as are not yet examined so far as I find necessary and at last examine so much of Mr. Bs. dispute about his second argument as is not yet dispatched SECT XVIII Mr. Marshalls reply to the first section of the third part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant and seal is reviewed MR. M. in his Sermon page 8. thus disputed My first Argument is this The infants of believing parents are foederati therefore they must be signati They are within the Covenant of grace Therefore are to partake of the seal of the Covenant To this I answered by denying both the antecedent and the consequence and first I disputed against the consequence Exam. part 3. s. 1. Mr. M. in his Reply would have the Reader to consider my advantage from the much silence in the Scripture to make my work have a specious probability that the like specious plea might be made against the justification of infants especially if his dispute should be carried as mine is altogether in the way of making exceptions against arguments but not positively affirming any thing Thus what others have counted my vertue and have commended beyond what it is fit for me to express Mr. M. unjustly seeks to draw into suspition as if there were sophistry and guile in it as he did in other things as I shew in my Apology But me thinks a considerate Reader should take this to be the course of a diffident man If there be much silence in Scripture about infants why do Mr. M. and others avouch their baptism with so much peremptoriness If their justification could be no better proved then their baptism it would be no article of my faith My disputation is carried in that way which is used by Disputants that examine writings Scholastically wherein it is defective Mr. M. should shew That I made exceptions against arguments was agreeable to my work being to answer as Mr. M. was to prove no man is to expect regularly any more of a Respondent Yet that I positively affirm nothing is an untruth with a witness yea in many points where it was not necessary I positively set down my tenet and my proofs and answer objections to the contrary The resolving questions about baptism how it should be could not reasonably be expected in my Examen 2. Mr. M. takes on him to prove his consequence by mine own principles to wit that I yield that such as are regenerate sanctified c. may be baptized which he saith is in plain English that such as are covenanters ought not to be denyed the initial seal of the covenant But I do not think the speeches the same either in plain English or Mr. Ms. own English or mine Not in plain English In plain English a Covenanter is one that makes a promise Is a Scottish Covenanter any other then one that makes a promise or subscribes to the Covenant But a person regenerate or sanctified may make no promise nor do I think when Mr. M. calls infants federate or in the Covenant of grace he means they make a promise but that a promise is made to them Nor in Mr. Ms. own English For when he saith they are in covenant he means infants are in some sense under the covenant of grace in respect of the outward administration and Church privileges which is not all one as to be regenerate sanctifyed c. nor in my English For the being in covenant which I grant gives a title to baptism is meant of their present state so as that not only the promise is made to them what God will do for them afterwards but for the present they are actually sanctified regenerate believers disciples as mine own words cited by Mr. M. shew So that Mr. M. doth but abuse me and the Reader endeavouring to possesse him with this conceit as if his consequence were proved by mine own principles But Master Marshall not trusting to this answers more particularly 1. I grant with you that there is no necessary dependance between a promise and a seal the addition of a seal to a promise is of free grace as well as the promise it self Which if true then there 's no necessary connexion between the Covenant and Seal and so this proposition is not true All that have the promise are to be sealed For if it be true it is in some degree of necessity to wit de omni As for his reason it is frivolous there is no necessary dependance because both are of free grace For those things that are of free grace have a necessary dependence as to be predestinate called justified glorifyed But he means the nature of the terms makes not a necessary connexion between them If that be his meaning Mr. Baillee his Collegue is deserted who would infer a necessary connexion from the nature of the terms which I have refuted in my Addition to my Apology S. 3 But Mr. M. addes Nor 2. did I ever think that by Gods revealed will this proposition was true in all ages of the Church All Covenanters must be sealed I carried it no higher than Abrahams time when God first added this new mercy to his Church vouchsafing a seal to the Covenant Answ. If this be true then there is nothing moral and perpetual in seals as they call them of the Covenant For such thing are from the beginning and belong to Gentiles as well as Jews and therefore it is in vain to derive infants sealing barely from the Covenant of grace For sith that as Mr. Ms. first Conclusion speaks for substance hath alwaies been one and the same both to the Jews and Gentiles if there were a connexion between it and the seal it should have been as well before Abrahams time as since But he thinks in his third answer to make good the connexion when he saith And 3. from Abrahams time and so forward I say it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant 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 To which I answer He saith after if you please to state the general Proposition as you needs must That 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 So that one of these two propositions is that which makes up his Enthymeme an entire syllogism and his syllogism must stand in one or other of these forms From Abrahams time all such as are in covenant should be sealed with the initial seal of the covenant supposing them onely capable of
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
covenant in respect of the things promised as already possessed but that they are in covenant in respect of Gods act of promise they have promise of that which they shall have when they are called as I often express my self which being rightly understood the cavil of Mr. Bl. vanisheth of it self for though the resurrection be not past because of a promise of it yet the term Covenant being the same with a promise they may be said to be in Covenant in respect of a promise made to them who yet enjoy not the thing promised Which is confirmed even from the common allegation of Paedobaptists who say that by virtue of the promise Gen. 17.7 to be a God to Abraham and his seed infants of believers are in the covenant which can be true only in respect of the promise made which is as much before they are born as after To this Mr. Bl. answers 1. That this can be an argument barely ad hominem seeing though we affirm yet he denies any such Covenant I reply 1. That it is true that I deny that Gen. 17.7 there is a covenant made to believers and their seed but I deny not the Covenant to be to Abraham and his seed nor do I deny elect infants to be therein comprehended and that afore they are born 2. If it be only an argument barely ad hominem yet it is sufficient till the tenet on which it proceeds be disclaimed by them which Mr. Bl. hath not yet the heart to do But he answers 2. I say as they were in being so they were also in covenant not actually but potentially which is nothing to Master Tombes his purpose I reply To be potentially in Covenant may be meant either in respect of possession of the things promised and so I grant they were in covenant onely potentially or in respect of the making of the Covenant and so they were in covenant actually that is the promise was made to them and this is enough for my purpose to prove a person may be in covenant unborn in which sense onely infants are in covenant and therefore if infants thus being in covenant make them visible Church-members and give right to their baptism by the same reason unborn or uncalled infidels have right to baptism Mr. Bl. page 386. saith he willingly closeth with me where I say that the judgement of charity is no rule to a Minister whom to baptize nor do I dissent from what he saith if his meaning be as the words seem I as well know when any man is in covenant as he knows when he is a believer when any man doth avouch himself to be one of the people of God as he knows when they professe to believe I do confesse that by the same knowledge whereby any man is known and so far as he is known to be a believer he is known so far to be in covenant he that avoucheth himself to be one of Gods people and that professeth to believe is in appearance and to be taken as in covenant and a believer But how doth Mr. Bl. know that this or that infant is in covenant and to be baptized not by Gods promise for there is no such promise of any Gentile believer that all his infants or any one in particular shall be his people either by regenerating grace or outward ordinance not by profession of believing or avouching himself to be one of the people of God for no infant doth or can without miracle do it therefore it must be by a judgement of charity which Mr. Bl. agrees with me to be no rule to a Minister whom to baptize or no way And consequently were it granted which is not that being in covenant in respect of Gods promise of being a God to some infants of believers did give a title to baptism yet no Minister could upon this ground baptize this or that particular infant nor any infant now existent sith he neither doth nor can know without special revelation that God hath made this promise or covenant to it What he addes And it appears when it is brought home this is all his ground of challenge of baptism of persons in covenant because their interest in covenant is not manifest is not right For I assert first that bare interest in the Covenant that is as I have often said this thing that God hath promised to be his God doth not of it self intitle a person to baptism sith God hath made this promise to thousands yet unborn and of those that are born to thousands yet uncalled perhaps Jews yet professed unbelievers whom no man can say rightly to have title to baptism 2. That if it were granted this interest in the covenant did intitle to baptism yet no Minister can by this rule justify his baptizing of an infant sith he neither hath nor can have ordinarily knowledge that the infant he baptizeth hath this interest in the Covenant What he saith of me that I seem to make election and interest in covenant commensurate All elect are interessed in covenant and all interessed in Covenant are elect I do grant it being understood of the covenant of Evangelical grace of regeneration justification c. in respect of Gods promise of it and I have often shewed that both Paul Rom. 9.8 and many of the soundest Protestant Divines say the same But what he addes of me And elect infants as he hath more then once acknowledged might be baptized in case their election were known is Mr. Bls. mistake of me who do no where say that they may be baptized in case their election were made known but that infants born might be baptized in case their regeneration faith sanctification were made known Whereas a person not yet begotten may be known to be elect but not to be regenerated or made a believer And by my tenet there is a bar against baptizing of infants in that they want title to baptism and if they have title we want knowledge of it As for Paedobaptists tenent I profess I do not know what they count a bar against baptizing of infants according to their tenent there being such uncertainty in their tenents some holding all are to be baptized in case of danger of death some all born in a Christian nation some all who are in families of persons professing the Christian faith though the parents were infidels some onely the children of Church-members after the way they call Congregational some judging of the interest in the covenant by a judgement of charity some by a judgement of certainty What my tenet is I have shewed already Though I conceive that Christs words Mat. 19.14 did import that the infants were elect yet I do not say that Christ was displeased with the disciples for being ignorant of their election and justification and for that reason not admitting them to be blessed by him but for that knowing Christ was the great prophet who was sent to bless they did hinder those that were brought to
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
in his exercitation ch 5. are considered I Shall adde a consideration of what Master Sidenham notes on Acts 2.39 that I may at once shew the impertinency of its allegation for connexion between the covenant and baptism and infants of believeâ—s covenant-interest upon that consideration I agree with him that the promise is of remission of sins and so of salvation Nor do I deny it to be suitable to what is promised Gen. 17.7 understanding it not as Paedobaptists and among them Master Sidenham conceives as a promise to each believer and his natural seed but as a promise to Abraham as the â—ather of believers and his spiritual seed by the following of his faith of righteousness before God repeated at large Jerem. 31.34 Nor do I mistake his making it the same with the promise of Christ and the Spirit as Gal. 3.14 is meant including justification sanctification and all graces And his words I conceive very opposite to overthrow Master Cobbets and others conceit of external right and administration when he saith it would be but a poor comfort to a wounded soul for to tell him of a promise of gifts not of spiritual grace and the Holy Ghost is a better Physician then to imply such a raw improper plaister to a wounded heart which would hardly heal the skin this promise is brought in as a Cordial to keep them from fainting and to give them spirits to believe and lay hold on Jesus Christ. And truly no other promise but that of Free-grace in order to Salvation can be imagined to give them comfort in that condition And after and it must needs have been a mighty low and disproportionable way of perswasion to put them upon such high things in the former verse and to encourage them onely by the narration of some temporary gifts in the following when their eye and heart was set on remission of sins and salvation by Jesus Christ and nothing but a promise holding forth these mercies could have been considerable to them Nor do I deny that the children as well as the Parents are included in this promise nor do I deny but that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as well as the parents But I deny 1. That the mention of the promise to them and their children was allusive to the expressions in the Old Testament when God said to Abraham I will be the God of thee and thy seed Gen. 17.7 or that Isai 44.3 and such like nor hath Mr. Sidenham proved it and there is this reason against it For in those expressions the Fathers are mentioned as righteous persons and believers but here the parents could not be considered as righteous and believing persons for they were not such but then charged by Peter and at that time under the sense of the great sin of killing Christ and admonished to repent of it and therefore the words have clearly this sense The promise is to you and your children as bad as you have been and the mention of their children is not allusive to Gods expressions in the Old Testament but to their own curse on them and their children Matth. 27.25 and so cannot note a priviledge to them and their children as persons better then others but an assurance to them of that good which they feared their sin debarred them of by telling them of Gods inrent for good according to his promise though they meant it for evil as the same Apostle doth Acts 3.17 18 19. and Joseph did Gen. 45.5 and 50.20 2. I deny that the children are invited to baptism by the promise as giving title to baptism of it self for the promise is urged as a motive to a duty not as a plea whereby they might claim nor was their interest in the promise the antecedent to baptism but the consequent on it For the promise whether it be of remission of sins or of the saving gift of the holy Ghost allowing Master Sidenhams observation that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is certain that Peter did assure them of it not as yet already attained but as attainable not before but upon their repentance and baptism neither to them nor to their children as their children but to them and their children and all afar off as many as the Lord should call 3. He doth not invite them to baptism but so as that he first puts them in minde of repentance Now if the promise had been alledged as giving title of it self to baptism he had left out repentance But putting it in first he plainly shewes that the alledging of the promise was as well to move them to repentance as to baptism and first to repentance then to baptism nor is any other course taken with the children then the parents the promise and duty are declared in like manner to both And therefore Master Sidenhams talk of Peters speaking in the known dialect of the Old Testament that if he had not meant upon their believing and baptism without any other consideration of Gods calling or their repentance the children to be in the promise he had deceived them and that there was no other intent in mentioning the promise but to intimate that as the Jewes and their infant males were circumcised by vertue of the promise so it should be to them in baptism is but vaiâ— without proof and without truth But Master Sidenham asserts that the words as many as the Lord shall call can in no sense be referred to the former part of the verse either to parents or children which if true then according to his own interpretation of the promise the Apostle asserts that the promise of remission of sins and of the Spirit including justification sanctification and all graces was to them and their children whether called or no. But let 's view his reasons for this audacious assertion For saith he 1. He changes the sense in both parts of the verse in the first part unto the Jewes he speaks de praesenti of the present application of the promise repent you and be baptized for the promise is to you and your children even now the promise is offered to you and they were then under the call of God But when he speaks of the Gentiles because they were yet afar off and not at all called he speak de futuro as many as God shall call even of them also which is the first hint of the calling of the Gentiles in all the Acts of the Apostles Ans. The Apostle changeth not the tense of the same veâ—b in either part of v. 39. For there are but two verbs in the verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and neither used above once so that he might have said he useth two verbs in two tenses but neither changeâ—h in one or both parts of the verse the same verb or the same tense of the same verb. But what if he had changed the tense and had said the promise is
he take the promise to be made to Christ the seed as the Head of a visible Church then still it speaks for us Answer This is doughty disputing likely to turn the edg of our weapons against our selves when the Antagonist must yield him what he would have and me thinks he should have brought some Expositour or some argument for him and not so pitifully beg what he should prove To the contrary I urge that by Christ Gal. 3.16 is meant either Christ personal or Christ mystical or both and not as the Head of a visible Church 1. That the promises said to be made to Abraham 's seed that is Christ are of the blessing of Abraham which is righteousness and the spirit Gal. 3.8 9 14. the inheritance v. 18. life v. 21. not bare outward privileges But these things belong onely to Christ and his mystical body not his meer visible Church Ergo they are not the seed there meant 2. From the condition or means by which the promise is made good and that is faith v. 14 22. But the meer visible Church may be without faith therefore the promise is not made to it 3. By the express determination of the Apostle v. 7. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham vers 29. And if ye be Christs that is by faith v. 26 27. then are ye Abraham 's seed and heirs according to the promise which a man would think were enough to silence thâ—se that make the promises to belong to unbelievers as Abrahams seed 4. The current Protestant interpreters of note such as Beza Piscator Perkins c. go this way But Mr. Sidenham thinks to evince his purpose from v. 14. where the blessing of Abraham is said to come on the Gentiles through Christ and this blessing of Abraham was not personal but to him and his seed this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed For it cannot be called Abraham s blessing except it come on the Gentiles according to the substantial terms of Abraham 's Covenant now this was the absolute form of Abraham 's blessing I will be a God of thâ—e and thy seed and this very blessing is come on the Gentiles through Christ as it came on Abraham and therefore it must be to believing Gâ—ntiles and their seed else it will neither â—e Abraham 's blâ—ssing in the form nor faâ—ness of it Abraham 's blessing will descend on the Gentiles clipâ— half off not like it self and it must needs be a very uncouth saying to all judicious ears to say that Abraham 's blessing is come on the Gentiles by Christ as it was on the Jews by Abraham and to exclude half the subjects at once from any right to it for so you must if you cast out the seed of Gentile believers To which I answered that had not the Assembly at Westminster Confession of Faith chap. 28. art 4. cited Gal. 3.9 14. with Gen. 17.7 9. to prove infant-baptism of a believing parent I should not have transcribed so much of this arguing The blessing of Abraham must come on the Gentiles saith he according to the substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 Ergo on Gentile believers and their seed Now what is the blessing of Abraham and what the substantial terms of the Covenant and what seed of Abraham did it come on and how 1. The blessing is plainly expressed v. 8.9 to be justification v. 14. to be the receiving the promise of the spirit The same Apostle Rom. 4 6 9. placeth the blessedness of Abraham in the imputation of righteousness through faith Beza Annot. in Gal. 3.14 Et spiritus nomine benedictionem aeternae spiritualis vitae intelligo Perkins Comment on Gal. 3.14 That the blessing of Abraham that is righteousness and life everlasting Piscat Schol. in Gal. 3.14 Ut benedictio illâ— Abrahae promissa de qua supra v. 8. ad Gentes perveniret in Christo quatenus nimirum illae Christo inseruntur per fidem Diâ—son in Gal. 3.14 benedictio Abrahae id est justitia vita aeterna 2. The substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 are thus set down by Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 10. The substance of the Covenant on Gods part was to be Abraham 's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and of sanctification and of everlasting life On Abraham 's part the substance of the Covenant was to believe in the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Not one that I know that makes the blessing or the substance of the Covenant to be an initial seal visible Church-membership and such like meer Ecclesiastical privileges 3. The seed of Abraham to whom the blessing is promised is his spiritual seed and it onely Diodati Annot. on Gal. 3.14 of Abraham namely promised to Abraham and to his spiritual posterity onely Trapp Comment on Gal. 3.14 v. 14. The promise of the spirit that is the spiritual promise made to Abraham and his spiritual posterity The Text it self â—al 3.7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham 4. The means is through faith Gal. 3.14 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham vers 9. From which I infer that he that would conclude from hence that the blessing of Abraham comes upon the Gâ—ntiles fathers and infant-children and that this is according to the substantial terms of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 must hold that all children of Gentile believers are elect and believers and that they are justified as Abraham was which Mr. M. and Mr. G. disclaim and indeed is manifestly false being contrary to Scripture and experience But Mr. Sidenham thinks to infer hence a meer Ecclesiastical privilege of right to an initial seal which is not at all meant Gal. 3.14 by the blessing of Abraham nor ever meant by the Covenant Gen. 17.7 nor would the promise be true if meant of it for many of Abrahams seed had no right to Circumcision or visible Church-membership Surely according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses all the posterity of Abraham by Ishmael the sons of Keturah Esaus were excluded and therefore the word of Gods promise so expounded had been false As for Mr. Sidenhams Reasons there 's no force in them The first may be retorted The first is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham therefore it must not come on believers of the Gentiles and their seed also universally for it came not on Abraham and his natural seed universally nor is it true this very blessing is come on Gentile believers as on Abraham for it is come on Abraham not simply as a believer but as a father of
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
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
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
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
studied arguments in unusual expressions that he might the more easily entangle me having no time to weigh his words but being required presently to give answer For which reason I was also necessitated sometimes to vary my answers as I deprehended his meaning to be Now presuming I shall better understand Mr. B. then I could do before I shall give a more determinante answer to his argument Which that I may do I conceive it necessary that in the entrance I do enquire into his opinion concerning the visible Church and admissiâ—n into it and the meaning of his expression ought to be admitted visible Church-members 1. Mr. B supposeth that the reason of the appellation given to the visible body is its seeming to the judgement of man to be the same with the mystical Praefestin Morator sect 11. 2. That to be a member of the Church visible is but to be one that in seeming or appearance or to the judgement of man doth belong to the invisible Church or the Kingdome of Heaven if a man be known or any sort of men to belong to the Church invisible then they visibly belong to it and then they are visible members of the Church Plain Script proof c. part 1. ch 31. pag 105. ch 27. pag. 73. He saith to be member of the visible Church or of the Church as visible or a visible member of the Church are all one and is no more but to seem to be a true member of the Church of Christ commonly called invisible or of the true mystical body of Christ. Answ. to my Valedict Orat. pag. 176. You say you dispute them not out of the invisible Church Answ. 1. But will you yeeld that they are so much as seeming probable members of the invisible Church If you do then they are members of the visible which you deny For to be a visible member of the Church or a member of the visible Church as such is no more thâ—n to be a seeming member of the invisible Church or one that we ought to take in probability to be of the invisible Church Wherein how Mr. B. is mistaken is shewed in the 2d Part of this Review sect 17. pag. 229 c. 3. Ch. 20. He imagâ—nes an universal visible Church existent not dissolved which is all one as to say there is or was an universal visible Church consisting of indiviâ—ual members immortal or perpetually visible Which mistake of his will come under consideration in that which follows 4. Ch. 5. ch 20. he imagines having infants to have been of the essentials of the Jewish Church But therein he is mistaken For though they may be termed substantial parts yet not essential the Jewish Church had ben a visible Church though there had been no infant in it but integral 5. Ch. 20. that the nature of the Jews Church was not repealed that the Jews Church was not repealed ch 5. that the Law or Covenant on which the species or essential form of their Church and many of its accidents was grounded is not changed or repealed Though the Jews are cast off yet the law and nature of Churches is still the same Which speeches with other more of the like kind shall be God willing examinâ—d in that which follows and the non-sence and vanity of them shewed 6. Ch. 23. that infants visible church-membership did not begin at the institution of circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off 7. That this is grounded on a Law and Covenant of God which is made higher then that Gen. 17.7 even that Gen. 3.15 Ch. 23. Yea he makes it to antecede the fall of Adam Ch. 19. it is said to be of the Law of nature to have infants to be a part of a Kingdome And ch 13. therefore infants to be church-members Pag. 60. That infants must be church-members is partly natural and partly grounded on the Law of grace and faith as if Church constitution were natural and not by meer institution 8. Animadv on Mr. Bedfords treatise of Baptismal regeneration Plain Script proof pag. 3â—6 pag. 15. and elsewhere he makes the condition of the infants church membership and justification to be wholly without him in the faith of the parent The falsity of which conceit is shewed by me in the 2d part of this Review sect 10 17. and elsewhere 9. That this visible church-membership notwithstanding the continuance of the parents Faith the imagined Law and Covenant yet endures not but til they when they come to years do themselves make profession So Plain Scrip. proof part 2. ch 6. pag. 119. He is not to be taken for a Christian who will not visibly by himself when he comes to age as he did by his parents in infancy publickly profess both his assent to to the fundamental Articles of Faith and his consent that the Lord onely shall be his God and Christ onely his Redeemer and so his Saviour and Lord and promise in heart and life to be true to him accordingly And I deliver the Sacrament to none that will not thus profess and promise And pag. 335. He saith He will not contradict this proposition of Davenant Those who in Baptism were truly justified regenerated and adopted suitable to their infant state when they come to the use of reason are not justified regenerated and adopted suitable to the special state of the aged unless by repenting believing and abrenunciation they fulfil their vow made in Baptism 10. That there is no other way of admitting visible members now into the Church but by Baptism pag. 24.108 But they are visible members afore Baptism according to his tenet pag. 24. We and infants are Church-members before Baptism 11. I presume that when he saith All that ought to be admmitted visible church members ordinarily ought to be baptized he means this of Christian Churches church members and admitting into them not the Jewish For though I find him speak as if the Jews Church were not repealed as in his non-sence he speaks ch 20. that is as I imagine in the nature or essence the Jewish Church visible and the Christian were the same and so they that were admitted into the Jewish are to be admitted into the Christian which caused me to suspect at the Dispute an ambiguity in that expression ought to be admitted visible church-members Yet I do not imagine that he holds the proposition in this sense All that ought heretofore to be admitted visible church members in the Jewish Church distinct from the Christian ordinarily ought then to be baptized afore Christs coming while the Jewish Church stood if he should I should deny it 12. That this admission which infants are to have is as he often speaks into the visible Church But what this admission into the visible Church is by whom and unto whom it ought to be according to Mr. Bs. judgment is yet to me uncertain Admission is according to the common use of iâ— the
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
and ingraffing not to have any thing from the rooâ— but to imitate it But this I said that Abraham is not termed the root as communicating faith by infusion or impeâ—ration mediatory as Christ but as an exemplary cause of believing and the ingraffing I make to bee Gods act of giving faith after Abrahams example whereby righâ—eousness is communicated from Abraham as the precedent or pattern according to which God gives both though the branches do not themselves imitate Abraham Now this is no more non-sense then to term him a father without any other begetting or communicating then as an exemplary cause which the Apostle doth Rom. 4.11 12. and as I shew in the first part of this Review Sect. 2. pag. 1â— Dr. Willet Diodati Pareus do so expound the root and father of the faithfull so that if there bee non-sense these learned men with the Apostle are to bee charged with it as well as my self which may redound more to Mr. Bls. then to the shame of Rhetorick And if a root bee too low in the earth to bee as an example so is a fathers begetting too hidden a thing to bee our example yet Abrahams believing and justification may bee Gods example according to which hee gives faith and righteousness 2. When Mr. Bl. makes Abraham Isaac and Jacob the root as communicating Ordinances visible Churchmembership c. I would know how hee makes them communicating roots of these to believing Gentiles infants Sure not by natural generation for neither mediately nor immediately are they roots to them that way not by teaching or example for they are not things imitable nor are they to them teachers or visible examples not by communicating to them the Covenant that is Gods act What way soever hee make them the root according to his opinion there will bee as much non-sense and shame to Rhetorick and less truth in his explication then in mine What hee adds that whatsoever kinde of root I make it yet it is a communicative root vers 17. I grant it in the sense expressed not of communication by infusion or mediatory impetration but as an â—dea And what hee saith further that the term Father and root are not full synonyma's yet in the main they agree is as much as I need to shew that it is no more non-sense to term him a root who communicates sap onely as a pattern then it is to term him a Father who begets onely as an example And whereas hee saith both metaphors aptly set forth what the branches as from a root the children as from a Father receive namely their title to the Covenant from him and therefore as to Abraham so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and the Adoption Rom 9.4 5. And so to all that are become children and branches with them I grant the metaphors set forth what the branches and children receive from the root and father But that the thing received is title to the Covenant in Mr. Bls. sense that is to be partakers of outward ordinances which is more truly non-sense then my expression of a root by exemplarity or that to Abraham and so to all Israel pertained the Covenants and adoption Rom. 9.4 5. or that to the ingraffed branches or Gentile children of Abraham belonged the Covenants and adoption and other pâ—iviledges which are there appropriated to Israel after the flâ—sh though not imparted to all there alledged is denied Title to the Covenant of grace is not communicated to Gentile believers any otherwise then in that they are made Abrahams seed by faith and this is communicated to them no otherwise from Abraham then as an example and therefore he is a root no other way â—hen I assigne if there bee any other way it is more then yet Mr. Bl. hath shewed Yet hee adds the title Father is yet extended to a greater Latitude as hee doth impart to his issue as before so hee is a patâ—ern and example as even natural parents are likewise according as Rom. 4. â—2 quoted by Mr. T. is set forth yet that place is too palpably abused Answ. Though Fathers bee examples and patterns to their children in their actions yet not all nor onely parents are such nor is Abraham called a Father there because hee was a good pattern onely but because hee as the Aâ—chtype or primitive pattern begat Jews and Gentile believers as his seed to faith nor in this or any thing have I abused the Apostle Mr. Bl. tels mee The steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed or the profession of faith which hee made All that were professedly Jews and all that were professedly Christians wâ—lk in the steps of that faith All circumcised believers had not that faith that justâ—fies nor yet all the uncircumcised and Abraham is a father of both Hee could bee exemplary as a pattern to bee followed onely in that which is external his faith quà justifying could not bee seen to bee imitated Answ. I abhor it to abuse the Apostle so palpably as Mr. Bl. doth here For it appears not onely from the main drift of the Apostle in the whole Chapter precedent specially v. 9 10. but also from the very words v. 11. that righteousness might be imputed â—o them also that the Apostle speaks of that faith onely which is justifying which is believing with the heart Rom. 10 10. And therefore those speeches are palpably false that the steps of the faith of the Father Abraham is the doctrine of faith which Abraham believed which may be by a Teacher that neither believes nor professeth or the profession of faith which he made which a Judas or Simon Magus might have and so should have righteousness imputed to them as Abraham had that all professed Jewes or Christians walke in the steps of that faith that Abraham is Father of those uncircumcised believers who had not that faith that justifies As for Mr. Bls. reason it is against himselfe for Abrahams profession could no more bee seene to bee imitated in the Apostles dayes then his faith as justifying both might be known by Gods word and be followed as a pattern though I conceive the Apostle makes those to walk in the steps of Abrahams faith who do believe as hee did though they never saw or heard of Abrahams bâ—lieving as he may be said to write after a Copy who writes the same though he never saw the Copy He adds And the like he hath pag. 78. I make Abraham onely the root as he is onely the â—ather of believers exemplarily and that which made him the Father of believers was not the Covenant but his exemplary faith as I gather from the words of the Apostle Rom. 9.16 17 18 19 21. Did none but Abraham give an example unto others of believing The Apostle to the Hebrews sets him out chap. 11. as one example among many we find many that went before him Abel Enoch Noah and more that followed after him And I
should rather think that the Text by him produced proves without any contradiction that the Covenant made Abraham the father of believers he is the called three Father of us all and a Text quoted for it which is Gen. 17.5 A Father of many nations I have made thee And whether that be not by vertue of Covenant let the context be consulted together with the Apostles words Rom. 4.11 He closed with God in Covenant and accepted the seal of the Covenant that according to Covenant he might be the Father of all them that believe Answ. 1. If Abel Enoch Noah be set out as examples of believing with a faith justifying Heb. 11.4 5 6 7. by which Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith then it is not true which Mr. Bl. â—aith a little before that Abraham could be exemplary as a pattern to be followed onely in that which is external 2. Many before and after did believe as Abraham and they are examples to us Pleb 6.12 Yet we find not any whose faith was remarkably tried and approved as Abrahams and therefore none denoâ—inated the Fatâ—er of believers besides him 3. It is granted the promise or Covenant was the object of Abrahams faith and that it did assure that he should be the Father of believers both of Jews and Gentiles yet the reason of the denomination of Father of believers is made onely his eminent faith and the form denominating him is 〈◊〉 relation to them the foundation of which was his begetting believers exemplarily 4. Rom. 4.11 It is neither said Abraham closed with God in Covenant nor that he accepted the seal of the Covenant nor is there in that v. any mention of the Covenant or of the seal of the Covenant but â— 16 the Apostles having termed Abraham the Father of us all v. 17 18 19 20 21. he sets out his faith as most eminent and that as the reason of his Fatherhood Mr. Bl. to what I said the fatness of the Olive tree Diodati said truly is the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed and so the Apostle expresseth Gal. 3.14 saith This we grant and priviledge of ordinances contained this blessing and this promise we know the Gospel to be the power of God to salvation To which I reply The blessing Gal. 3.14 is jâ—stification v. 8 9. and the promise is of the spirit through faith which a man may be without though he have the outward â—riviledge of ordinances and therefore are not contained in it Nor is the Gospel the power of God to salvation without faith and therefore if the ingraffing be onely into the visible Church and a person have onely the priviledge of ordinances he may be without the blessing and promise made to Abraham and to his seed Gal. 3.14 which is granted by Mr. Bl. to be the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 and therefore the fatness is more then outward priviledges and ordinances and I said truly it is too washy and frigid an exposition which doth so expound it and this washes away the dust Mr. Bl. casts on Rom. 11.17 But he argues thus That wherein the Jews exceeded the Gentiles is the fatness whereof the Gentiles partake when they are ingraffed instead of the Jews this none can deny for this makes them their equals and co partners But it is priviledges of ordinances how frigid and washy things soever Mr. T. little better then profanely makes it is the priviledge wherein Jews exceeded Gentiles Rom. 3.1 Deut. â— 7 8. Psal. 147.19 20. Therefore this is the fatness of the Olive Answ. The major is not true if universal and Mr. Bls. reason proves it For the Gentiles when ingraffed were not made equals and co partners in many things wherein the Jews before exceeded the Gentiles All those things mentioned Rom 9.4 5. were prerogatives of the Jewes never imparted to the Gentile believers yea that priviledge mentioned Rom. 3.1 the committing the Oracles of God the Christian Gentiles were never made equals and co partners with the Jews in God did never give oracles and answers to the Christian Gentiles nor the Tables of the Covenant and the Book of the Law to be kept as hee did to the Jews But that wherein the Jews and Gentiles were made equals and co partners was justification by faith and union with Christ by his spirit as Ephes. 3.6 Gal. 3.28 29 c. and therefore this argument is rightly retorted thus on Mr. Bl. That wherein the Gentiles ingraffed were equals and copartners with the Jews is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 But this is not the priviledges of Ordinances but justification and oneness in Christ ergo that is the fatness meant Rom. 11.17 To what I said that the Gentiles were not partakers of the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews they being takâ— away hee saith if that of the Apostle bee true that the Gospel was preached to Abraham Gal. 3.8 then this cannot bee false If the Rock and Manna in the Wilderness bee the same as that on which wâ— seed 1 Cor. 10.2 the outward priviledges of that people may well the 〈◊〉 the same with ours Answ. 1. If the outward priviledges and ordinances of Abraham and the Jews be the same with ours then not onely the preaching the Gospel but also Circumcision the Passeover the Temple High Priest sacrifices c. must be the same to us as to them 2. Though the Gospel be preached to us which was preached to them yet not in the same manner it was preached to them â—s future to us as accomplished nor by the same ordinances not by the slaying the Paschal Lamb the High Priests going into the most Holy place with bloud once a year c. 3. Noâ— is it true that the Rock and Manna in the wilderness is the same as that on which we seed 1 Cor. 10.3 4. though it be true the same Christ or spiritual meate and drinke was signified by the Manna they ate and the water out of the Rocke which they dranke which is signified by the Bread and Wine wee receive in the Lords Supper But this doth not shew the same outward priviledges of the Jewes and us but the same spirituall benefits signified to them which are to us He next tels me I have taken pains for my own full refutation for if Abraham be the root then the natural posterity of Abraham must of necessity be the natural branches which were cut off which he endeavours to prove from Rom. 9.2 3. 11.1 14. though the conclusion be not denied but oft asserted by me and then brings in Paul thus disputing Pauls kinsmen after the flesh were the Church visible not invisible But Pauls kindred according to the flesh were the branches cut off Ergo the Church visible not invisible was cut off Which conclusion doth not contradict any thing I assert who never made the Church invisible cut off but some branches broken off from the Church invisible which was
limitation of all things necessary to salvation or of all things needfull to withstand the seducers he mentions not a word â—hat mentions their prophesying Nor doth Joh. 7.39 prove every believer a prophet nor may it be gathered from 1 Thes. 5.19 20. that such preaching which we must suppose may bring us something that is not good is called prophesying but that something may be termed prophesying which is not and therefore the spirits are to be tried whether they be of God for many false proâ—hets are gone out into the world as John speaks 1 Epist. 4.1 Nor is it true that Peter exhorts the Jews Act. 2.38 to repent that is to go on as they had begun For though they had some horrour of conscience v. 37. yet not repentance unto which Peter exhorts v. 38. nor doth any word used by Peter intimate that they had begun to repent And what Mr. C. adds to the clause to as many as the Lord our â—od shall call not onely to them but also to their children is too bold dealing with the Scripture there being not a word in the Text which implieth that addition and therefore is not justified by his allegations of Psal. 1.6 Prov. 10.24 What other arguments for Mr. Cs. purpose have been urged from Act. 2.38 39. have been largely answered already I go on Mr. C. adds p. 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99. a large discourse in whiâ—h 1. there is p. 97. a confession which doth invincibly prove infant Baptism to be will worship and his speech false which he used p. 8â— that the New Testamâ—nt is not altogether silent in this matter and it is this Whoever shall confine himself onely to the N. T. to find out the law of Gods worship and service he shall never find it not onely as to infant Baptism but also to all other Ordinances whatsoever For if infant Baptism be not to be found in the N. T. then the N. â— is altogether silent about that matter and if it be not there then it is will worship there being no law about a meer positive rite or ceremony in force to us Christian Gentiles now which was givâ—n to the Jews in the Old Testament as I have proved Exam. par 3. sect 12. pag. 116 117. Review par 2. sect 2 3. 2. There is in the same p. 97. a false and dangerous speech that Christ spake so little in his N. T. concerning the law which is the rule which he hath set for his service of his house namely because he could look upon that for the greatest part to be done already to wit in the Old Testament Which if true then the laws about the ceremonies of the Jews are our rule we are still under the yoke of bondage popish prelatical ceremonies are still justifiable a Bishop or Archbishop above Presbyters and Bishops appeal to Synods their power to decide controversies to excommunicate a national Church constitution are still to be retained for these or that which was proportionable to these was according to the Rule of Gods house then Nor is there a word in any of the Scriptures which Mr. C. alledgeth for this his purpose Not Luke 16.16 the meaning whereof is not as Mr. C. fancies That in the times before John was the season to instruct men in the law since in the Gospel but as it is Mat. 11.13 All the prophets and the law until John prophesied that is foretold of Christs comming as future but the Kingdome of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 16.16 from then is Evangelized or told as good tidings already beguâ— to be aâ— Diodati annot on Mat. 11.13 Johns prerogative above the precedent prophets is that they have onely foretold and described things to come but he hath delivered the present salvation and in him is begun the Evangelical Ministery and the legal and figurative Ministery is ceased Yet if Mr. Cs. exposition were allowed it provâ—s not that in the Law or Old Testament the rule about the service or meer positive worship of God in the N. T. is set but rather the contrary for if that were the season then for it and now is the season for another thing it follows that it is unseasonable to take a rule for Gods houâ—e in meer positive worship from the Old Testament The alledging Psal. 78.1 by Mat. 13.3 9 35. proves not that a rule for rituals is to be feâ—cht from the Old Testament although it may be usefull for to prove doctrines about the Gospel Gods providence moral duties c. Though it be granted which Mr. C. concludes pag. 96. the general nature of the Law to bee one and the same to the people of God under both Testaments which is easily yeilded sith the general nature is invariable and the same to all for ever yet it followes not that the Laws about â—eremonies are the same to the people of God under both Testaments if so we are still under the yoke of Circumcision and the Legal rites and under the Law And indeed Mr. C. hath in this thing vented many false and dangerous speeches that to us in Christ the Law hath been as it were incorporated with the Gospel as thereby become part of the covenat of grace the Law given by 〈◊〉 is called the Testaâ—ent of Christ byâ—hrist â—hrist himself that the Old Testament this the New and both confirmed by his bloud that in the type by the bloud of Bulls and Goatâ— thâ—â— in the answer type by his own bloud And yet he saâ—th the Apostle Râ—m 1â— 6 applieth Deut. 30 â—2 14 to the Gospel in opposition to the Law as in it self considered without the Gospel or as a covenant of works which words are contrary to his former For if the Gospel be opposed to the Law by the Apostle as it is in it self considered is without the Gospel is a covenant of works then the Law is not incorporated with the Gospel or thereby become part of the covenant of grace nor is the Law given by Moses called the Testament of Christ nor confirmed by his bloud but the bloud of Bulls and Goats ill termed Christs bloud being opposed Heb. 9.12 In like manner it is a dangerous assertion which he hath pag. 95. In the covenant of workes the Law was Do this and live but in the covenant of grace it is Do this in the strength of Christ and live which if right we live that is are justified for so his words following explain it by the doing the works of the law in the strength of Christ which if I do understand it is the very doctrine of Bellarmine Tom. 4. de justific l. 1. c. 19. and other Papists saying the Apostle excludes not works done after grace by faith from justification but afore faith Which Protestant Divines commonly refute as â—areus in his Castigations Ames in his Bellarm. enerv Chamier Tom. 3. paustr. lib. 22. c. 2. Abbots defence of Perkins p. 502. Rivet sum contr tract 4. qu. 10.
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
easie fully to answer them p. â—5 but does not especially in this point on which the controversie between us depends and therefore not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Dr. terms it I think the Dr. hath made a more immoderate excursion in his heaping up testimonies out of the Fathers in his standing so much on the denial of an enallage and the force of the preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I resolve to follow him and hope to overtake him in long running though his Pen and Press be quicker in dispatch then mine The first thing the Dr. attempts is to prove out of the Fathers that the term holy 1 Cor. 7.14 is as much as partakers of Baptism First saith he the ancient Fathers who knew the sacred Dialect call Baptism sanctification and Cyprian and Nazianzen are cited To which I answer 1. The word of the Apostle is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the adjective holy which notes a state of discrimination from the unclean not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanctified a participle connoting the action of the sanctifier as well as the state of the sanctified and therefore may import Baptism and not the other now the two Fathers the Dr. cites with Gregory Nyssen after use not the term holy but sanctified and therefore were it granted that they used sanctified for baptized yet this proves not they or the Apostle to have used holy for baptized 2. I think the Fathers he cites did not in those passages he cites call Baptisme sanctification though they took the person baptized to be sanctified by it My reasons are from their words For when Cyprian saith him who is born to be baptized and sanctified he seems to mee to distinguish not to confound baptism and sanctification and when Nazianzen in the place quoted useth this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I think it is ineptly rendered by the Dr. p. 102. by this means they may be baptized souls and bodies sure the Baptism of water doth not touch the soul and therefore Nazianzen is to be so interpreted as though he included baptizing in the phrase of sanctifying as the means of it yeâ— he doth not confound them or call Baptism sanctification The like I imagin might be said of Gregory Nyssen if I had his book whose words it 's likely if the Dr. had set down more fully as hee doth in others the impertinency of his allegation would have appeared As for the Jewish stile of sanctifications for Baptisms it will be to be considered after Macarius his saying that the Jewish Baptism sanctifies the flesh is not a calling Baptism sanctification But the Dr. stands most on Tertullian in which he takes iâ— that holy is used as he conceives Paul to use it 1 Cor. 7.14 for partakers of Baptism so he expounds designatos sanctitatis the designed or sealed of holiness in the sense he conceives wherein they that are baptised are by the ancients frequently said to be sealed and p. 92. designati sanctitatis sure must signifie that they are initiated into Christ by the Christian right or sign or ceremony of Baptism as those which had the Heathâ—nish ceremonies used upon them were candidati daemoniorum candidates of the Devil in the former thus early admitted and initiated into their sacra But neither do I conceive the Apostle to have used holy for holiness by baptism nor that Tertullian doth mean that which the Dr. would have him nor do the Apostle and Tertullian perfectly accord Twice in that Chapter doth Tertullian use the term holy once holiness once sanctified The fiâ—st passage is thus Hinc enim Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait tà m ex seminis praerogativa quà m ex institutionis disciplina From hence the Apostle also saith holy ones to be procreated from either sex sanctified as well by prerogative of seed as by discipline of institution By either father or mother sanctified the Dr. coâ—ceives meant when either the father or mother is received as a believer by baptism into the Church by holy baptized for he makes the notion of holy in those words of Tertullian to be the same with designatos sanctitatis which he interprets by sealed that is baptised in the ancients language Pag. 61. holy appears to bee this but now are your infant children partakers of the priviledge of Baptism But that Tertullian mean by sanctified baptised is not proved by the Dr. and his paraphrase makes it in 1 Cor. 7.14 to import being converted to the faith and so Tertullian ad uxorem l. 2. explains what he means by sanctified gained by the wise to the faith I deny not that hee made Baptism a means of that sanctification but he doth not call as the Dr. saith baptism sanctification but the whole fact of Gods grace as hee saith Dei gratia illud sanctificat quod invenit by teaching and inlightning the person sanctified Yet herein Tertullian and the Dr. accord not with the Apostle for the Apostle supposeth 1 Cor. 7.14 the person said to be sanctified still an unbeliever otherwise his reason had been nothing to confirm the resolution v. 12 13. which was the believing yoke fellow might live still with the unbeliever for the unbelieving husband that is the husband continuing an unbeliever is sanctified but this cannot bee meant either of conversion to the faith or baptism for then he should be a believer when hee is said to bee sanctified so that it is plain neither Tertullians expression concurs with the Dâ—ctors notion not do the Dr. and Tertullian agree with Paul The other words sanctos procreari sith he restrains to infants the sanctity pag. 72. hath this sense the infants are procreated holy that is baptized for thus he speaks the Apostle in that place makes the sanctification or bapâ—ism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever But herein neither doth Tertullian or the Dr. accord with Paul for hee makes not the holiness of the children to be the benefit of the parents faith but of their conjugal relation nor doth the Dr. accord with Tertullian For the holiness there meant by Tertullian is not meant onely of the time of infancy 1. Because he saith it to be as well ex institutionis disciplinâ as ex seminis praerogativa Where ex seminis prerogativa the Dr. agrees p. 92. to be in that he is not so polluted by their idolatrous ceremonies and so is in some degree holy not federal holiness as Mr. M. pag. 35. would the whole scope shewing that to be the meaning that they are not so polluted as heathens children Now ex institutionis disciplina the Dr. would have have p 9â— meant the doctrine of Baptism instituted by Christ in his Church for by this it is that baptism was allowed to those that were ex alterutro sexu sanctificato procreati born of parents of which either of them was Christian. Thus in his book de bapt c. 12. he uses a like
the place will the place be clear For not two priviledges as the Dr. makes it but one priviledge to wit holiness which the Dr. makes to be baptism is ascribed to them by a double means freedome from heathenish pollutions and the doctrine of Christ about infants Baptism Whereas freedome from such pollutions gives no title to Baptism and if prerogative of birth â—e meant of federal holiness of which is not a word there and the discipline of institution be the doctrine allowing baptism to the child born of a believer it is either an inept tautology both being the same or incongruous speech which should be thus mended by prerogative of birth according to the doctrine of baptism by Christ in his Church imagined by the Dr. but not extant in Scripture nor Tertullian Nor do Tertullians words following de Anima c 40. Every soul is so long enrolled in Adam till it be inrolled in Christ and is so long unclean till it be thus anew enrolled prove that by holy Tertullian meant baptized For in the words before to which ita so refer he makes holy to be the same with entring into the Kingdome of Heaven and the enrolrolling in Christ he makes the same with being born of water and the spirit Of the words ascribed to Origen and Athanasius enough hath been said already Neither Cyprians nor Chrysostomes words prove that holy is as much as partaker of baptism in the Ancients language much less in the Apostles 1 Cor. 7.14 to the further consideration of which I proceed after Dr. Hammond I excepted against Dr. Hammonds paraphrase of 1 Cor. 7.14 that the term young Children of Christians is more then is in the text which hath onely your children which is not restrained to infancy But the Dr. proves it is 1. By the authority of Tertullian who saith of infant children that they are procreated holy and Nazianzen who using this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all probability refers to this place of the Apostle and so renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their children by their infant children Answ. 1. Tertullian doth not say that the infant children are holy in infancy onely 2. Noâ— is there any thing said to make it in any sort probable that Nazianzen referred to that place of the Apostle in which is neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor that hee should render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when he useth not the same case nor number the Apostle doth but onely useth a description of young age which is not to my remembrance expressed by the other word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any where 2. The other reasons are farther from the thing For neither doth it appear to be the general doctrine of the Fathers that the parents faith profits onely their infant children some of them do reason from the faith of the woman of Canaan the faith of the ruler of the Synagogue that faith of parents profits children who were not infants The other reason runs upon this mistake which should be proved to be the Apostles meaning but is denied by me â—hat he makes 1 Cor. 7.14 sanctification or baptism of the children a benefit of the believing parents cohabiting with the unbeliever I said holy for admitted to baptism is a sense of the word no where else found But this the Dr. hopes he hath cleared both from the usage of â—he word among the first Christian writers which is answered and the Jewish of which in that which followes and saith I might further do it even by this Apostles dialect who in his inscriptions of most of his Epistles to the Churches calls all those to whom he writes i. e. the baptized Christians of those Churches holy Rom. 1.7 and sanctified and holy 1 Cor. 1.2 2 Cor. 1.1 Eph. 1.1 Phil. 1.1 Col. 1.1 among whom no doubt there were many who were no otherwise holy or sanctified then as all baptized Christians are capable of that stile Answ. True But doâ—h hee term any infant so in those places or give them those titles barely from Baptism doth he not expresly term them Saints by their calling not by their Baptism The Drs. allegations have not yet altered my minde but I think as I did his interpretation new strange and absurd I alleged Aug. l. 2. de pecc mer. remiss c. 26. and the like is said l. 3· c. 12. Saying the sanctification of what sort soever it be which the Apostle said to be in the children oâ— believers yet it belongs not to that question of Baptism and the beginning or remission of sins To this the Dr. answers T is true he saith it belongs not to that question whether the sanctifying of the catechumeni after a sort by the sign of Christ and prayer of imposition of hands without Baptism profits him not to the entring the Kingdome of Heaven And the meaning is such sanctification except it be that of baptism cannot avail to remission of sins Answ. The Dr. mistakes in making the question to be of the Catechumeni mentioned c. 26. it is of the children of believers who being termed holy 1 Cor. 7.14 should seem not to need Baptism which Augustin answers 1. By mentioning divers sorts of sanctification but not determining which is there meant 2. By resolving that what ever the sanctification be which the Apostle said to be in the children of believers not as the Dr makes it of the Catechumeni it belongs not to that â—uestion of Baptism not as the Dr. doth palpably pervert the words p. 64. whatsoever sanctification it can be imagined to be that the Apostle speaks of except it be that of Baptism it cannot avail to the remission of sins c. to wit mentioned ch 25. whether it exclude necessity of Baptism original sin and the remission of it in the children of believers termed holy Which is plainly against the Dr. who will have it meant onely of baptism of infants of believers by vertue of the believing parents faith As for my other objections against his paraphrase not answered I am so far from assurance that the Dr. can easily answer them that by this answer I judge he can answer none of them SECT LXXXXII Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from hath been sanctified for his sense of the fore part of 1 Cor. 7.14 is nullified and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated CH. 3. Sect. 2 the Dr. saith thus First then to my first evidence taken from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath been sanctified referring to some past known examples and experiences of this kinde of a wives converting the husband c. he hath a double answer 1. That as my paraphrase expresseth it it should signifie not onely that an unbelieving husband hath been sanctified but also that there is hope they will and so it should note not onely some example past but also some to come of which there can be a
of the term sanâ—tified any where else and how ill it suits with the Apostles argument is shewed fully before 2. But were it yeelded him 1. it would shew that thâ— alledging of the Jews calling their washings sanctifications to expound 1 Cor. 7.14 by was impertinent the Jews sanctifications being not bâ— perswasion of another but of themselves according to Gods appointment nor do they note first bringing to the faith and then admission by another to baptism but washing themselves and that is one reason why neither the use of sanctified nor holy 1 Cor. 7.14 can be conceived to be allusive â—o the Jewish sanctifications mentioned by the Dr. sith in 〈…〉 high Priest washed himself and but his hands and his feet 〈…〉 but Christian baptism was by the ministry of another by immâ—â—â—sion of the whole body and therefore this third reason of the Dr. is altogether in â—â—â—bable 2. If sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 be to be 〈◊〉 brought to the faith and so to Baptism holy is in like sort so be expounded and then we might allow the Drs. exposition of holy 1 Cor. 7 14. witâ—out any detriment to our cause it being granted the children of believers were brought to the faith and so to baptism Again saith the Dr. As for his second exceptions to my conjeâ—ture founded in the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sanâ—tifications for partial not total â—ashingâ— 1. I answer that I mention it onely as a conâ—ecture with a perhaps and lay no more weight uâ—on it 2. That for Christian baptism I no wheâ—e affiâ—m that it was onely by immersion nor on the other side that it was alwayâ— by spâ—â—â—kling but disjunâ—tively either by one or the other as by the wordâ— cited by him from prac cat l. 6 â—ect 2 is clear supposing indeed that Christs appointment was not terminated to either and so satisfied by either Answ. 1. The Dr. by putting in his conjecture shewed his willingness to have maintained by some colour the abuse of sprinkling in stead of baptism which his own words cited by me made me fâ—ar hee did against his own light and the contrary is not cleered by this slight excuse 2. The Drs. own words alledged by me plainly shewed that he knew the primitive baptisms were alwayes immersions of the whole body nor was any other use of water for baptism till the corrupt use of the circumfusion of the Clinici in the third Century began Nor do his words practic cat l. 6. sect 2. cleer the contrary to be conceived by him For when he saith By Christs appointment whosoever should bee thus received into his family should he 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 then aâ—ds or instead of that to bee sprinkled with it though he make Christs appointment disjunctively the one or the other yet he makes the primitive ancient custome onely to bee by putting under water as in like manner p. 35. and this was indeed the ancient primitive custome a Rom. 6.3 4. Col 2.12 shew and the known saâ—ing of Tertullian â—er meâ—gitamur And of any one Dr. Hammond should acknowledgâ— it who distinguisheth the sanctifications of a part from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Baptism and saith the Jewish solemnity of Baptism which he would have the original and paâ—tern of our Baptism to be the washing of the whole body As for his propounding Christs appointmenâ— disjunctively it discovers more of his audacious and corrupt dealing by maâ—ing that appointment which is but one way disjunctive either that waâ— wâ—ich is acknowledged to be Christs or another way in stead of it whicâ— cannot be shewn to have been practised by the Apostles or any Apostolical men in the primitive times And in this thing it is necessary that â—he â—â—il dealing of Dr. Hammond Mr. Baxter and othâ—rs be shewed who do most presumptuously add to the ordinance of Baptismâ— when Christ hâ—th appointed onelâ— dipping they add sprinkling when Christ appoints onely Disciples made by preaching the Gospel to be baptized they add infants who are not such and by a fictitious title maâ—e them Disciples by their parents faith who learn and profesâ— nothing themselves which he that readâ— considerately Mr. Baxters arguments in his 2â— disputation of the right to Sacraments may see sufficiently refuted and may think he could not write that Book without regret of conscieâ—ce for what hee had written in his Book of Baptism and when the New Testament makes none members of the visible Church Christian but professors of faith they add infants of their own head â—nd when the Scripture and Fathers in setting down the institution and practise of Baptism plainly express both so as that they confess them to bee onely meant of the aged yet would have them to include also infants contrary to the plâ—in words and their own confessions and in their expositions so expound the texts as expressing onely what agrees to the aged and yet in their arguments urge the same for baptizing of infants which they could not do if they did not plead for infant Baptism against heir own light or were not extremely heedless at one time of what they say at another How ever it be with them sure I am no conscientious Christian hath reason to be satisfied by sprinkling when Christ hath appointed no other then dipping nor with infant Baptism when as Mr. Baxter hath fully proved in his 2d disput that there is a necessiâ—y of profession of repentance and faith before and none are to bee baptized but those that are first professed Disciples of Christ and though he supposeth believers children Disciples and the parents profession to be instead of their own yet no where proves it nor offers any proof but what is meerly conjectural nor can any Pastours or teachers of Churches without most arrogant presumption baptize or take for visible Churchmembers infants whom neither Christ nor his Apostles did baptize or take for such But I return to the Dr. My last reason saith he is taken from the effect of the legal uncleanness contrary to those their sanctifications viz. removing men from the congregation agreeable to which it is that those should bee called holy who in the account of God stood so that they might be received into the Church To this he answers that it is said without proof that the uncleanness excluding from and sanctification restoring to the tabernacle are proportionable to the notion here given of the childrens beiâ—g excluded or included in the Church asking why Cornelius should be counted out of the Church being a devout man But to this I reply that that which is so manifest needed no further proof for what two things can be more proportionable or answerable the one to the other then the Jews calling those unclean and holy who were excluded from and restored to the tabernacle and the Christians calling them unclean and holy
that were excluded from and received into the Church the exclusion and reception being the same on both sides as also the uncleanness and holiness and the proportion lying onely betwixt the Jewish tabernacle and the Christian Church which surely are very fit parallels as could have been thought on Answ. Were it so yet it had been necessary to have proved the holy Ghost made them parallels that from the answerableness a reason might be taken to prove thence the sense of holy and unclean 1 Cor. 7.14 after the Drs. minde For it is not the fitness of an expression that must prove the sense we would but the use and the matter of the speech in which the Drs. expositions are defective But the holy Ghost no where that I know resembles the meer visible Church by the tabernacle but the invisible in which the spirit of God dwels or rather every believing Saint 1 Cor. 3.16 17. 6.19 Heb. 3.6 1 Tim. 3.15 or the body of Christ Joh. 2.19 Heb. 8.2 or heaven Heb. 9.24 and the uncleanness resembled by the legal uncleanness is such as excludes and the holiness such as admits into communion with God union with Christ entrance into heaven 2 Cor. 6.16 17. Revel 21.27 and the sanctification resembled by the Jewish washings is that which is invisible by the spirit 1 Cor. 6.11 not meer outward baptism and therefore if proportion or agreeableness could prove a sense of those terms the sense would be fairer for the expounding of holiness rather of real then relative holiness The Dr. adds As for his question of Cornelius it is most vain the whole discourse being not of real but relative sanctification and the difference most visible betwixt that sanctity which was truly in him in respect of his devotion fearing praying c. and that outward priviledge of admission into the congregation of the Jews which alone was the thing which in the account of God or sober men was denied Cornelius These be pitifull sophisms and in no reason farther to be insisted on Answ. All the discourse is not about meere relative sanctification sure Dr. Hammond when he expounds sanctified 1 Cor. 7.14 by being converted to the faith and the same with saved v 16. means it of real sanctification But were all the discourse about relative sanctification yet the question was not vain but attains the end for which propounded sith Cornelius accounted unclean by Peter Acts 10.14 was not out of the Church of God no not out of the Church visible being of good report among all the nation of the Jews Acts 10.22 though he were not in the policy of Israel and therefore uncleanness hath another notion then the non-admission into the visible Church Christian by Baptism of which is enough said before Nor are any of these things I alledge sophisms but plain answers nor any otherwise pittifull then that they meet with such a such a superficial and slight reply from the Dr. Of the different interpretatioâ—s from the Drs. of 1 Cor. 7.14 in Tertullian c. 39. de animâ and Augustin l. 2. de pecc mer. remis c. 26. and l. 3. c. 12. enough before And Hieromes different interpretation is that which is in the comment on 1 Cor. 7.14 in these words left out by the Dr. Item ideâ— vir uxor invicem sanctificantur quia ex traditione Dei sanctae sunt nuptiae mentioned here before sect 92. And Ambrose or who ever was the Author of that Commentary under his name in locum operum tom 4. sancti sunt quia de conjugiis legitimis natis both which agree with my exposition The two testimonies the Dr. brings out of Cyprian and Nazianzen are impertinent the former makes a distinction between baptizandum and sanctificandum the latter if it call Baptism sanctification yet it doth nor call Baptism sanctity the word ascribed to children 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore rather the first part of the v. is to be expounded if any thus sanctified id est Baptized which yeelds such a sense as the Dr. will not own and is shewed before not at all to be satisfied by him Neither the antiquity of Cyprian nor Gregory Nazianzen's skill in Greek assures us they understood the sacred Dialect How much Tertullian whom Cyprian counted his master and how much Origen of whom Gregory Nazianzen learned mistook the meaning of Scripture and generally the Fathers may be discerned by their writings remaining or if any list to take a short cut to satisfie himself he may see much in Sixt. senens Biblioth l. 5. and 6. In the 4 th ch sect 1. of Dr. Hammonds Defence there is little or nothing which at present I need reply to much of it being spoken to before Onely I have thought it necessary to go back besides my first purpose to Review the two first Chapters of his Defence because he doth so often tell me that I do inartificially deny his conclusion without answering to his premises SECT XCVI The Jewish custome of Baptism for initiation was not the pattern of Christian Baptism as Dr. Hammond would have it CH. 1. Sect. 1. of his Defence Dr. Hammond having excepted against my words about waving though it were his own term qu. 4 § 21. the more imperfect ways of probation tels us though infant Circumcision prove not infant Baptism a duty Yet it evidences the lawfulness and fitness of it among Christians by analogy with Gods institution of circumcision among the Jews and so certainly invalidates all the arguments of the Antipaedobaptist i. e. of Mr. T. drawn from the incapacity of infants from the pretended necessity that preaching should go before baptizing from the qualifications required of those that are baptized c. For all these objections lying and being equally in force against circumcising of infants c. And this the rather because the Apostle compares â—aptism of Christians with Circumcision Col. â— 11 12. and then adds some savings of Fathers which are of no validity for his purpose of the other thereâ— nothing true For the arguments drawn from incapacity fore going necessity of preaching qualifications have their force from the institution of Baptism by Carâ—t which lye not at all against the circumcising infants which hath another institution and hath no analogy with Baptism to acquiâ— infant Baptism for unlawfulness or unfitness except the Dr. can prove which I am sure he can never do that the Church as in the prelatical language he useth to speak hath power to make that lawfull and fit to be done in the Sacraments of Christ which is otherwise thâ—n Christ hath appointed The Apostle doth not at all compare baptism of Christians with Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. But these things are so fully argued Review part 2 sect 5 c. here sect 8 that till these sections are better answered then Dr. Hammond doth here the arguments will be valid against Infant Baptism The force of the Drs. urging Christs actions to little ones Mark 10.16 Matth. 19.14
the Lords tradition l. 2. Epist. 3. ad Caecilium with other things do sufficiently discover the weakness of Cyprian and the Bishops of those times in their determinations and the slightiness of their reasons which no intelligent Divine should now urge and therefore me thinks should not adhere to their practise or tenents grounded on such frivolous reasons Nor in this matter is Augustins or Hieroms authority such as that we should relye upon their approbations and speeches their corruptions in this point and in other points shewing their mistakes both in matters of doctrine and fact some whereof are before noted section 88. and more will bee in that which followes As for what Mr. B. saith That the antiquity of infant Baptisme is all that he with others urge Cyprian for I reply he and others need not to have done that sith I acknowledge it to have been as ancient as Cyprian not as it is now but 1. in the practise used onely in case of imagined necessity to save an infant in apparent danger of imminent death from perishing as the words of Tertullian de bapt c. 18. and Greg. Nazianz. orat 40. de sanct bapt and sundry relations shew to have been the practise Now in this if Proâ—estant divines have rejected antiquity and deny such infant Baptism as they practised determining that there is not such a necessity of baptizing infants for that reason nor that they are to be baptized with private Baptism upon such a fear and accordingly declining it as superstitious they thereby justifie us from their crimination of innovation in deserting the Fathers when they themselves do it in the same thing as well as we And if Mr. Baxter as hee doth plain Script proof l. 2. c. 15. p. 153. except against Tertullians reasons as poor and therefore reject his advice why should not we reject Cyprians and his Collegues determination which was built on as poor if not poorer reasons then Tertullians 2. In the Doctrines taught For they taught that by Baptism the grace and mercy of God was given that without Baptism infants must perish that every one that is born of mankind is to be baptized in which Mr. Baxter and other Protestants do dissert them Now if they disclaim their Doctrine in that which led them to their infant Baptism we have no reason to be bound to their authority Nor is the Doctrine the least matter to be considered or the reasons of their determination impertinent to a right judgement of their practise For as in other controversies between us and Papists as about Menkish profession Lent fast Prayer for the dead c. the main thing considered is how far the Ancients practised these and upon what grounds as may be seen in ushers answer to the Jesuites challenge and other learned Protestants writings so it is in this By whieh we may discern that the Fathers practise of infant Baptism was upon the same grounds with those of the Papists which we reject and therefore the Fathers testimonies do indeed disgrace the cause of infant Baptism and plainly shew upon what erroneous opinions it came in and if prejudice did not dazle their eys learned and godly Protestants would rather suspect and judge infant Baptism a corruption then alledge their determination for their justification And for what is alledged that August Ep. 28. ad Hierony said that Cyprian did not make any new decree but kept the faith of the Church most firm it is manifest that the faith Augustine means was that infants had original sin and without Baptism must perish which in like manner he taught about the Lords Supper which was given to infants in Cyprians time as his Sermon de lapsis shews l. 1. de pecc merit remis c. 24. l. 1. adv Julian c. 2. contra 2 Epist. Pelag. l. 4. c 4. Now as we and the Romanists have rejected infant Communion though as ancient as infant Baptism or very near as ancient so should infant Baptism be rejected as upon the like mistake brought into the Church The like might be said of the exorcising or exuffiation that is blowing away or puffing out the Devil of which Augustine speaks so much as used with Baptism to infants the anointing with oyl giving milk and honey cloathing with white garments mentioned by Tertullian as common in his time before Cyprian which yet are left by us notwithstanding he make them in his l. 1. against Marcion lib. de Corona militis Apostolical traditions Out of which and many more instances this may bee collected that the Fathers testimony of the use of their time or of Apostolical traditions is not to be received without examining their reasons to which in this thing how little credit or heed is to be given will appear by the exceptions I have made in my Examen and shall now vindicate from what Mr. Ms. friend and Dr. Homes say to them The first was that in Tertullians time infant Baptism was not defined sith he disswades it De Bapt. c. 18. Scult med patr part 1. l. 7. c. 42. Tertullianus l de Bapt. â—os duntaxat baptizandos censet qui Christum nosse potuerunt The answers are 1. that he was for infant Baptism as appears by his book De anima c. 39. But this is refelled before 2. That he mentions it as then in use Ref. It is true but not allowed 3. That he allowed it in case of necessity Ref. This is against those that deny the use of it for that reason in that case 4. That he disswaded onely the Baptism of infants of infidels sith they onely were in need of sureties and likely to sail in answering the engagement for them Ref. This is not likely 1. Itâ—s not likely such were brought in the times of persecution nor that there were any Christians who would become sureties for them 2. It was usual then as the custome hath been since to have sureties at Baptism of infanâ—s of believers and also at the Baptism of the aged as is gathered out of Tertul. de corona militis Inde suscepti which is spoken of the â—ged 3. The words of Tertullian shew he argued aâ—ainst the Baptism of any little ones in respect of their age 4. His reasons be they what they will â—re agaiâ—st the Baptism of any little ones wiâ—h express direction for them to come not till they were of age to understand Venient ergo dum adolâ—scunt veniant dum discunt dum quo veniant docentur fiâ—nt Christiani cum Christum nosse potâ—erint That is Let them come tâ—erefore when they be grown up let them come when they learn when they are taught wherefore they come let them he made Christians when they shall be able to know Christ. Which makes it certain he meant this even of believers infants whom he presumed would be taught to know Christ and that Anâ—iâ—adobaptist doctrine had then lookt into the Church though Dr. Hammond say otherwise â—he â—d Exception was â—ugustines and Hieroms
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