for the begetting of a favourable opinion of themselves and their children which are more to most then demonstrations out of Gods word do gain an easie assent And though I am not out of hope that those who have opposed the truth I assert with impetuous zeal will be especially the most tender conscienced who examine their wayes and review their doctrines awakened and see and confess their errour yet I fear the obloquy and perhaps detriment in repute and outward estate and peace which mâ—n either are likely or doubt they may incur by owning the truth I hold forth or the seeming inconsistency of the reformation I seek to promote with the peace of the Churches of God will divert the thoughts of many from an exact consideration and an equall judgement of what I shall write either of my self or the matter under debate What was wont to be opposed against the reformation of Popish and Prelatical corruptions shall we go against all antiquity Be wiser then our Fathers condemn all the Churches make rents in the Church and such like objections though they be upon examination but vain yet like Gorgons head they are apt to turn men into stones and to make men not see what they do or might see and to be insensible of the evil of that practise which otherwise their Consciences would be affrighted with And truely though it be the wise and just contrivance of Divine provâ—dence and congruous to his end that the vanity of all things under the Sun might appear yet is it an humane irregularity that not onely for evil labour but also for all travel and every right work a man is envied malignâ—d or disliked of his neighbour Eccl. 4.4 chiefly when it crosseth self ends and conceits Nor is it incident onely to the prophane and unbelievers to dislike and oppose such acts as are rightly done but also to the godly until their mistakes are discovered to them The building of the Altar of Ed Josh. 22.12 was likely to have been an occasion of war beetween the rest of the Congregation of Israel and some Tribes till the intention of the builders was cleared to Phinehas and Peter's going in to Cornelius Act. 11.2 occasioned contention with him though it were from God till his warrant was shewed Paul knew that his promoting the collection for the poor Saints at Jerusalem might be distasted of the best and therefore he prayes that his service which he had for Jerusalem might be accepted of the Saints Rom. 15.31 Even holy upright men have their weaknesses passions mis-prisions prejudices which oft times hinder a right understanding of tenents and actions of Christian Brethren and thereby no small contentions arise God would have us discern thereby humane imperfection and keep our spirits humble and heedfull how we manage the rightest actions Surely no action is more necessary then the discovery of truth in the things of God nor should any endeavours be more acceptable to holy persons then such as tend thereto yea though there should be imperfection in actings and defect in the success Yet too much experience hath shewed that such attempts meet with much opposition and are ill entertained even by those who are or seem friends to truth It is unnecessary to give instances in the Scripture Acts 15.2 c. in the Ecclesiastical Story there are so many as verifie it beyond all contradiction If there were no other example but what hath befaln me about the point in this writing discussed yet it were sufficient to verifie what I said of the difficulty to gain entertainment of that truth against which men are prepossessed and of the ill usage of them that in a due manner endeavour to cleer it That Infant Baptism was not according to Gods will I thought might be made manifest by the silence of it in Scripture and the Writings of the two first Ages and by shewing how it was counted but an Ecclesiastical humane tradition unwritten induced upon such reasons by the Leaders of the Churches in after ages as are now judged erroneous and how false and dangerous the grounds are on which it is made a Divine institution to wit an imagined Covenant of grace to a Believer and his seed natural the nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace the inference of duties about positive rites of the new Testament from analogy with abrogated Ceremonies of the old the command of Circumcision to have been in the extent of it commensurate to and derived from the Covenant with Abraham Gen. 17. as the adequate reason the succession of Baptism into the room and use of Circumcision all which or most of them are so contrary to the Scripture and Protestant doctrine as that I presumed they would quickly have been discerned by those who are acquainted with the controversies of Divines and sought reformation in Discipline and removal of humane inventions in Gods worship and had entered into a solemn oath and Covenant to that end And for my way of manifesting my doubts first to the Ministers of London and then to the Committee of the Assembly then sitting at Westminster and after to a prime man in it in the years 1643 1644. and what opposition I found is so manifest in my two Treatises and Apology published 1645 1646. as that it were but actum agere to say any more thereof Which I hoped would have taken off such prejudices as my Antagonists writings had raised against my writings and person that I might securely apply my self to review the Dispute wâ—thout hearing of any more personal objections But when I found the like usage continued by Mr. Robert Baily of Glasgow in Scotland I published an Addition to the Apology 1652. though it were framed before and sent in a letter Manuscript to him Yet the hottest charge was behinde After my necessitated removal from the Temple in London to Bewdley in Worcestershire anno 1646. it happened that a publike Dispute was between Mr. Richard Baxter of Kidderminster near to Bewdley and my self at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. which how it was occasioned managed injuriously divulged may be perceived by the writings on both sides his Epistle before the first Edition of the Saints Everlasting rest his Book of Baptism Praefestinantis Morator and my Antidote printed 1650. and Prâ—cursor anno 1652. By Mr. Baxters book of Baptism my self doctrine answers practise have been so unwoâ—thily dealt with as that they have been painted out in deformed shapes quite besides their true feature and thereby exposed to the unrighteous censures and contempt of so many that Mr. Blake in his Preface to his Vind. faederis thought he might without controul say Mr. Tombes is generally lookt upon low enough under hatches It is indeed too manifest that upon the publishing of Mr. Baxters Book of Baptism which was often printed and very much dispersed floods of reproaches were cast on me and those who are of my judgement in that point triumphant boastings of that
and imagins an ordinance of their visible Church-membership distinct from the ordinance of Circumcision unrepealed out of which he endeavours to prove Infant-baptism though he no where that I know shew us where that ordinance is notwithstanding in my Praecursor and elsewhere he hath been often pressed to shew it which book of M. B. taking so much that a third edition is printed I had hoped paedobaptists would have stuck to his way and declined the other way of analogy of the Command of Circumcision But I see latter books as M. Sidenham M. Fuller and others still insisting on the hypothesis concerning the covenants and the seal and Baptisms succession to Circumcision c. M. Gataker in his Latin treatise against D. Ward about the force and efficacy of Infant-baptism though by his Epistle it appears he had seen M. Baxters books yet p. 16. he speaks thus to D. Ward I would you had specially designed the Command concerning the baptizing the infants of believers which you mean For although from the analogy of Circumcision and the nature of this very sacrament as it is destined to initiation the comprehension of infants in the Covenant of grace c. I deservedly believe both the Antient Church to have used and the Church at this day justly to use Infant-baptism yet hitherto I have found no speciall Command concerning this thing I wish he had formed and confirmed his proof for Infant-baptism from the Analogy of Circumcision c. so antient learned a man and so accurate in Controversies me thinks should have yielded some better proof for Infant-baptism than others have don or have forborn calling them novel sectaries who with so much endeavour oppugn Infant-baptism which is the expression in his Epistle to the Reader and with-held his hand from subscribing to that attestation wherein the Four positions of my Examen were censured as erroneous and pernicious But not meeting with any other proof than this I shall keep on in the Review of the dispute and examine the pretended institution of Infant-baptism out of the Old Testament taking in some texts of the New and first Examine the way of proof by analogy of Circumcision which seems to have been the Assemblies way and then M. Bs. more refined way as is imagined desiring the Reader to take notice of what was before disputed in the Second Section of the second part of this Review to prove that consequences drawn from analogy between meer positive rites of the Old and New Testament to prove a duty in the use of them without particular institution are not good SECT II. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove Infant-baptism from Gen. 17. are Examined Two wayes I finde Consequences framed one in arguments formed syllogistically the other in certain Conclusions or hypotheses from whence it is conceived they may deduce Infant-baptism I begin with the former way I had formed the argument from Gen. 17.7 c. three wayes in my Exercit. Sect. 1 2 3. and that without disadvantage to my Antagonists notwithstanding D. Homes his exceptions But I am content to view the forms D. Homes sets down as more agreeable to their minde In his Animadversion on my Exerc. chap. 2. pag. 6. he saith Our first form of argument from Gen. 17.7 c. is this Where there is a Command for a thing never remanded on contramanded there the thing is still in force But there is a Command for signing the infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 9. never yet remanded or contramanded therefore the signing believers children with the sign of the Covenant of grace namely baptism now is still in force To which I answer 1. The conclusion is not of the thing in question which is not of the children of believers but of the Infant-children of believers as it was in the Minor now a person of 20. years of age is a believers child as well as one of two dayes old 2. In the Minor the sign of the Covenant of grace Commanded is understood either of the sign of the Covenant of grace expressed in the Conclusion to wit Baptism and if so it is denied that there is any such Command Gen. 17.7 9. to sign with the sign of the Covenant of grace believers infants there 's no Command but of circumcising the manchild of eight dayes old not a tittle of baptism or else of a sign of the Covenant of grace there expressed and if so the Minor is denied that the Command for signing the Infants of a believer with the sign of the Covenant of grace Gen. 17.7 9. was never yet remanded or contramanded It was expressely contramanded Acts 15.28 Gal. 5.1 2 3. If in the Conclusion by the sign of the Covenant of grace be meant as the words namely baptism now import the rite of Christian Baptism and in the Minor it be meant of the Command of Circumcision then there is a fault of the syllogism in the form it consisting of four terms If in the Minor iâ— be meant of the sign of the Covenant indefinite which is neither Baptism nor Circumcision I deny there is such a Command Gen. 17.7 9. and the syllogism hath also fourth terms Two other forms he hath pag. 9. 2. Form of argument from Gen. 17. is this To whom the Covenant in force runs in the same tenour in the New Testament as in the Old to them the application of the first sign or seal of the New Testament may be applied as well as the first of the Old Testament But this tenour of the Covenant of grace still in force is as true and doth as truely run to a believing Gentile I am thy God and the God of thy seed as it did to Abraham the Father of believing Gentiles Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Ergo the first seal of the Covenant may be applied to believers children now in the New Testament as well as in the Old to Abrahams The Major is plain in Gen. 17. the tenor of the Covenant and the application of the first seal are Knit into a dependence one upon another I am the God of thee and thy seed V. 7 8. Therefore thou shalt circumcise every male V. 9. c. The Minor is unquestioned of any that I know Answer 1. The thing to be concluded was that Baptism may be applied but baptism and the first seal of the Covenant I do not take to be all one Baptism or Circumcision I do no where finde in Scripture called the seal of the Covenant much less the first seal and why the blood of Christ or the spirit of Christ or the oath of God may not be called the first seal of the Covenant as well as these I know not again the Conclusion was to be may be applied to infant-children of believers where as the conclusion is may be applyed to believers children And the thing to be concluded was simply baptism may be applied to Infants of believers whereas it is propounded comparatively now
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-Gospel-covenant nor Circumcision a seal of the Covenant of Grace or the first seal yet the thing I mean by it being proved out of those texts forenamed there is no reason to except against the expression Nor can it be true that the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. is held forth as pure a Covenant of Grace as may be if the promises are of sundry things not assured to Believers in the Covenant of the New Testament Which is most evident for no Believer hath now a promise of the possession of the Land of Canaan but rather an assurance of persecution no promise of such greatness as to be the progenitor of Kings and Nations but rather of obscurity and debasement A pure Gospel Covenant containing many promises is rare in the Old Testament except where he foretells us he would make a new Covenant God made a Covenant with David Psal. 89.3 c. Nor do I deny it was a Gospel-covenant yet therein are promises peculiar to his house as vers 30 31 32 33. yea the promises which were Evangelical in the furthest intent and aim were domestical in the first place and the most open expressions Nor is it a whit against the mixture of Abrahams Covenant which I avouch That the Apostle tells us plainly that this Covenant was confirmed of God in Christ Gal. 3.17 And that Christ was never the Testator of any Covenant but that of Grace For the word is in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendered in Christum by the Tigurines into or unto Christ or as Master Dickson renders it respectu Christi in respect of Christ That is as in his paraphrase with relation to Christ or as Diodati whose foundation was Christ not as the Testator but as the party concerning whom the Testament was made or as the executor by whom
the other of the Chaldee Paraphrase R. Solomon Symmachus that they are called Sons of God because Sons of Potentates or Judges of which Mr. Cartwright ubi supra and that of others Sons of God that is eminent men because I think the other is more right however they are not called Sons of God that is visible Church-members by their descent but by their profession which is not to be said of infants It is true Ezek. 16.28 21. the children of Israel are said to be born to God that is of right as their Land was the Lords Land Hos. 9.3 and this did aggravate their sin that those that were of right his were sacrificed to Idols now this was by reason of that peculiar interest which God had in that people vers 8. But that what is said of the sons of the Jews is true of all the infants of believers or that this is enough to entitle the infants of Christians to visible Church-membership and the initial seal as they call it is yet to be proved Of Mal. 2.14 15. I have spoken sufficiently in the first part of this Review Sect. 13.26 of the Ample Disquisition to which I add that in the second Edition of the New Annot. these words are added suitable to my Exposition of a legitimate seed All other seed is spurious not a lawfull seed nor such fathers are lawfull fathers who so pervert the order and Ordinance of Matrimony God puts his mark of infamy upon the seed it self Deut. 23.2 which shews that with Calvin that Authour understood by a Seed of God a legitimate seed That which is said Psalm 22.30 A seed shall serve him it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation hath no shew of any thing for infants visible Church-membership it cannot be expounded of infants while such for how can it be said They shall serve the Lord But it notes onely a continuance of the Church promised in a people who should when some decease stand up after them to serve the Lord. The impertinency of that Jer. 30.20 is shewed before As little to the purpose is that Psalm 116.16 He doth not say he was the Lords Servant as he was the son of his handmaid and it was to express his mean condition or humility as Mary Luke 1.48 not his privilege and his subjection to God not his right he could clame from God yet if there were any privilege imported in this title son of thine hand-maid Mr. Church must prove it to be Church-membership and that not proper to him as a Jew but common to all Christians ere it will serve his turn which he cannot do Enough is said before in the Ample Disquition to prove that 1 Cor. 7.14 children are not denominated holy because they appertain to the Church The remnant to be called holy Isai 4.3 are either such Jews as in the captivity escaped alive who should be holy in respect of their worship not serving Idols but the living God or such converted believers in the Christian Church as should be written in the Book of Life which makes nothing to infants Church-membership The Church is not called the circumcision Rom. 3.30 15.8 but the Jewish people The Christians infants are not rightly judged to be of the Church Christian because the Hebrews children were of the Church Jewish God now not taking one whole Nation for his Church but Disciples of Christ in all Nations Abraham is said Rom. 4.11 to have received the sign of circumsion a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised but that any other mans circumcision was so to him much less that every infants circumcision was such to them I reade not sure the tenour of the words imports no more than this that Abrahams circumcision in his own person was an assurance to all believers though themselves uncircumcised of righteousness by faith to be imputed to them also What Divines though of never so great esteem thence infer of the nature of circumcision that it is a seal of the righteousness of faith of all Sacraments that it is their nature to be seals of the covenant of grace that to whom the covenant belongs to them the seal belongs and consequently to infants are but their mistakes not the Doctrine of the Text. Of Mark 10.14 enough is said before Of infants may be the Kingdom of God yet they not in the visible Church The speech out of the Church is no salvation is true of the invisible Church of the elect and is so expounded by Dr. Morton Apol. Cath. and others of the visible it is not true Rahab had been saved though she had never been joyned to the visible Church of the Jews What I said that it is uncertain whether the infants brought to Christ Mark 10.14 were the infants of Christian disciples or believers is true for it is not said their Parents brought them and though it be probable they that brought them believed on Christ yet it is uncertain whether they believed him to be the Christ or some eminent Prophet as Matth. 16.14 Luke 7.16 The Daughter of the Syrophoenician was called a Dog Matth. 15.26 not because she was not a believers childe but because a Gentiles childe not an Israelitess Though Diâ—t 30.6 Isai 44.3 Circumcision of the heart and the spirit be promised to the seed of the godly yet it is not promised to any but the elect as the fuller promise Isai. 54.13 is expounded by Christ himself John 6.45 and therefore not as Mr. Church saith to children as they are the children of Gods People if as be taken reduplicatively for then all the children of Gods People should have the spirit promised Nor is the spirit promised to them in their infancy and yet if it were till they shew it we have no warrant to take them for visible Church-members or to baptize them without special revelation It is largely proved above that Acts 15.10 no infant is called a Disciple There may be hope of infants salvation they may be of the body of Christ though they be not of the visible Church Our infants and our selves though believers are yet Heathens that is of the Nations by birth and had been reputed Dogs as well as the Woman of Canaans childe Matth. 15.26 if we had then lived but in the sense as it is now used and as it was a Title of infamy and rejection Matth. 18.17 we are not to be called Heathens that is infidels and whose society is to be shunned nor our infants who are neither infidels nor believers they being not capable of faith in that state ordinarily as in Logick they say a Whelp till the ninth day is neither blinde nor seeing there being a middle of abnegation of either extreme by reason of the incapacity of the subjects so we may say our infants are neither infidels nor believers What Mr. Church allegeth out of Rev. 22.15 serves onely to beget hatred towards Antipaedobaptists for without there is
intimating such a command we are not bound to do the like in the one as we do in the other As for the sixth Argument That nothing can be soundly collected from the scriptures against infant-baptism the contrary hath appeared above in the second part of this Review Sect 5. c. what he grants that it may be soundly gathered that all of riper years should be discipled before baptism from the commission Matth. 28.19 doth also prove that they had no Commission to baptize any but discipled persons and so none but those of riper years not infants unless there be shewed some other Commission which is not to be found in the Scripture but only in corrupt tradition of antiquity and the Jewish arguings of latter Divines and is not yet found any other then will-worship To all which Mr. Church further brings answer is made before the vindicating of my objections will most fitly come in the reply to Masters Marshalls Defence to which I shall hasten after the dispatch of some few other Authors SECT XII Doctor Featley his argument for Infant-baptism from the Covenant is examined MR. Rutherford is another of the Authors whose writing Mr. Baxter tells yet remains to be answered But I know not any writing of his in which he doth directly dispute against Anti-paedobaptists I confess I have met with a dispute against those of the Congregational way of Discipline in his Peaceable and temperate Plea c. 12. q. 12. for denying baptism to those infants whose next parent is not a known believer in some gathered Church who yet do hold and practise baptism of such infants whose next parent is a Church-member But that dispute going only against them and upon his grounds denied and refuted by me elsewhere it were out of my way to answer what he saith there If there be any other writing of his I presume some one or other of the Antagonists I refute have the strength of it yet I intend if such a one do occurre to me to give account of it as I shall find meet Mr. Robert Baillee is another to whose writing Mr. B. points me But his first Argument I have already enervated in the Addition to my Apology in my letter to him and answering his three first criminations especially the third and have shewed sect 1. that he doth but calumniate when he charges us to affirm That no infants have any place in the Covenant of grace or any Gospel promises till they be called by the word and by an actual faith have embraced the Gospel What other arguments he brings are answered either in answering Others that bring the same or it s intended shall be answered in fit place There are many others who have written of this argument in the English tongue each of which forms his Argument from the Covenant to the initial seal from infant circumcision to infant-baptism with some difference in terms or phrasifying though in effect all of them are reduced into the three forms in the 1 2 3. sect of my Exercitation and rest on these false principles that interest in the Covenant of grace was the adequate reason of a persons title to circumcision and is the adequate reason of a persons title to baptism and that there is the like reason of baptizing infants of believers as of circumcising infants of Abraham by virtue of the like interest in the Covenant though there be not the like command for the one as for the other nevertheless that it may not be said I have neglected any thing conceived worth answering or to have slighted any of their labours I shall briefly answer the Arguments of such as have come to my hands and then more largely answer Mr. Geree Mr. Marshall Mr. Cobbet Mr. Blake Mr. Baxter who have opposed my writings taking in others by the way as I see fit Dr. Featley is one that hath been a Leader of the Prelatical party and is judged by them to have proved Paedobaptism learnedly His dispute is in his Dipper dâ—pt p. 46. arg 5. thus All they who are comprized within the Covenant and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to receive it But children are comprized within the Covenant of faith whereof circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11 and now baptism is Ergo children may and ought to receive Baptism Of the Major or first Proposition there can be no doubt for it is unjust to deprive a Man of the confirmation of that to which he hath a true right or title And for the Minor or Assumption it is as cleer for so are the words of the Covenant Gen. 17.17 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee Against which I except first That the Syllogism is many waies faulty 1. That he puts in the Conclusion children as all one with infants 2. That in the Conclusion there is this term not exprest in the Major may and ought to receive baptism for that which is in the Major may and ought to receive the seal of the Covenant is not all one with may and ought to receive baptism baptism and seal of the Covenant being not equipollent besides Circumcision passeover Lords Supper the Ephesians are said to be sealed with the holy spirit of promise Ephes. 1.13 nor is the term seal of the Covenant applyed to Sacraments any other than a novel expression neither used in Scripture nor the Antients Rom. 4.11 doth not term circumcision much less other Sacraments as they are called a seal of the Covenant of faith as the Doctor misallegeth it but a seal of the Righteousness of faith which he had being yet uncircumcised Whence it appears that it was a Seal of what he had not of a covenant concerning what he was to have and this is said onely of Abrahams circumcision with such an observing of particularizing circumstances as shew it to be appropriated to Abrahams circumcision what ever is said of circumcisions being a seal of the righteousness of faith however Divines dictate to the contrary and therefore what the Doctor addes in the Minor which multiplies the terms in the Syllogism and now baptism is asserting thereby baptism to be a Seal of the Covenant of faith is said without proof though I should not stick to grant it in this sense that to the true believer his baptism assures righteousness according to Gods Covenant and the true believer by baptism gives testimony or assurance of his faith according to his Covenant as being unwilling to wrangle about terms if we agree in the meaning But in the sense Paedobaptists use it as containing the nature of a Sacrament I shall reject it in that which followes 3. Against the Doctors omission of some words in the Minor and are no where prohibited to receive the seal therof which were in the Major 4. That the term and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof is ambiguous For it may be understood either of an express
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
in the covenant Gen. 17. which I have refuted The Gentile proselytes were to be circumcised because of the command though it were not known that each or any proselyte or his seed had interest in the Covenant As for Mr. Gs. reason of his obsevation it should seem by it he meant otherwise than he expressed to wit Circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because of the temporal promises which I grant and yet hold the Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. a mixt Covenant and that persons were to be circumcised to whom no promise in the covenant made with Abraham did belong Mr. G. goâ—s on To the other part of my exception against the connexion between the seal and covenant as they speak that many were not to be circumcised to whom all or most of the promises of the Covenant did belong as the females comming from Abraham he saith For females we answer That God under that administration was pleased in reference to some things pointed at by the seal to appoint a sign of which women were not capable so were they particularly excluded from being sealed with the Sacrament of initiation under that administration To which I reply 1. That women are not capable of circumcision is contradicted by those that say that at this day in some parts of the world women are circumcised Aethiopes Christiani mares octavo ab ortu die circumcidunt feminis etiam aliquid amputatur ut Abrahami et aliorum sanctorum patrum exemplo ardentius in similis sanctitatis studium incitentur Quarto deinde a circumcisione die mares octavo autem foeminae salutaribus aquis expiantur Eucharistiam â—o die infantes initiati in mica panis assumunt Osorius lib. 9. rerum ab Emmanuele gest Zuinger theat vit Hum. vol. 27. l 3. tit bapt pag. 4172. Osiander Epit. Hist. Eccl. Cent. 12. l. 4. c. 4. Anno Christi 1187. Jacobitae baptismo ciriumcisione utuntur circumcidentes masculos femellas Hornbeck Append. ad disp de bap ve thes 8. Solebant Aethiopes cum baptismo etiam circumcidere baptizatum mas an femina esset circumcidebatur Doctor Field of the Church 3. book chap. 1. Speaking of the Jacobites in Syria Sixtly they use circumcision even of both Sexes and of the Habassines They are also circumcised both male and female The same hath Heylin in his Geography describing Syria and Ethiopia and before him if my memory deceive me not Brerewood in his Enquiry of Religions So that it is but a just of Mr. Blake that women could no more be circumcised than barb'd if these authors be of any credit But were it true that women were not circumcised because uncapable yet would God doubtless have appointed such a sign as they were capable of if it were true that all that were in covenant must be signed But if it be true which Mr. G. confesseth That the females though in covenant were particularly excluded from being sealed with the sacrament of initiation under that administration then the connexion between the seal initial and the covenant is not proved from circumcision And as for that he saies That in reference to some things pointed at by the seal God under that administration was pleased to appoint a sign of which women were not capable it is a plain confession that God appointed circumcision for an end not common to believers at all times or to such as were in the covenant of grace but proper to the posterity of Abraham and therefore though the covenant were granted to be the reason of circumcision yet it follows not all must be baptized barely from the covenant of grace because they were circumcised by reason of interest in it sith this was not true and as Mr. Geree confesseth Circumcision was appointed in reference to some things proper to that time But he hopes to salve the matter thus So actually they were not circumcised yet were they reputed as circumcised as appears both by the place alleged by Mr. M. Exod. 12.48 and where the house of Israel is said to be circumcised and also by that of Samsons parents being displeased that he should take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines Judges 14.3 For unless the Israelitish women were reputedly circumcised in the males circumcision could make no difference between wife and wife yea our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised To which I answer To be reputed as circumcised may be understood thus they were mentioned as circumcised and this sense is false for then it should be an errour sith they were not circumcised nor is in the text Exod. 12.48 any thing to that purpose for the speech no uncircumcised person shall eat the passeover is to be limitted by the matter of them that ought to be circumcised and that Judge 14.3 of taking a wife of or from the Philistines uncircumcised as if thereby were intimated that an Israelitess woman was reputed as circumcised or that our Saviour should be born of the uncircumcised if women were not reputed as uncircumcised proves it not For the terms ciecumcised and uncircumcised are spoken of the people who are said to be circumcised from the chief part not from all parts I remember not where the whole house of Israel is said to be circumcised but to be uncircumcised in heart Jeremy 9.26 yet were there such a place it must be understood of all that were to be circumcised Or else the meaning is they were reputed as circumcised that is they were admitted to the passeover if their males were circumcised notwithstanding they were not in their proper persons circumcised which sense is true But then it serves not the turn to avoid the force of the instance brought to shew there is not a necessary connexion between interest in the covenant and the persons right to the initial Seal in his own person which Mr. G must prove to make good his Major For he would have infant-females actually baptized because in covenant and his proof is They that were in covenant were circumcised which must be meant of all in covenant and of actual circumcision in their own persons or else it can prove but a particular of some and their virtual baptism to wit female infants But Mr. G. thinks to prevent this objection And whereas you object that you may as well say that children are virtually baptized in their parents I deny it because you have not the like proof for the one as we have for the other Besides women that are said to be virtually and reputatively circumcised in the males were not actually to be circumcised at all they were excluded which you do not nor cannot say of infants when they are grown up you confess they may and ought to be baptized Answ. That which I said was only by way of inference upon Paedobaptists suppositions if virtual circumcision were all that might be claimed by virtue of the covenant it would not help Paedobaptists who would from the covenant prove a right
of actual circumcision to infants whereas by their own confession it onely proves necessarily a virtual and if so how can it prove necessarily by their own principles any more than a virtual baptizing of infants The same medium that doth not prove as necessary actual circumcision in the one cannot prove as necessary actual baptism in the other Now the force of this objection is not at all weakned by his reply For my words were not concerning the fitness of the expression that the one was as fit as the other but that I might grant a virtual baptism to infants without detriment to my cause if they assert no more from the covenant but a virtual circumcision But had I said you may as well say which yet I find not in my writings but we might grant we may say Examen page 37. by like perhaps greater reason it may be said Exercit. p. 4. the speech might have been right notwithstanding Mr. Gerees exceptions for there is no more proof for the use of this speech that females may be said to be virtually circumcised in the males then for this infants may be said to be virtually baptized in their parents neither being used in Scripture and reason being as much for the one as the other And though those that were infants when grown being believers are to be baptized yet infants during their infancy are by more full evidence excluded from actual baptism then females were from actual circumcision Mr. G. proceeds thus For your second instance of infants dying afore they were eight daies old I answer that they were particularly tyed to that day whether for the Theological reason Levit. 12.2 3. or for the Physical reason that God would not suffer an incision to be made on the flesh of a tender infant or till the seventh that is the Critical day was over or whether to typifie the resurrection we cannot determine but till that day they were expresly excluded yet therefore it remains clear that all that were within that administration of the Covenant that were not expresly excluded were circumcised which is enough for my purpose And so unless you can bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till 18 years or so that instance of infants not being circumcised dying before the 8. day is too short to reach up Answ. It is not enough for Mr. Gs. purpose which was to prove the seal did follow the covenant and when any were aggregated into the Jewish church and taken into the communion of the covenant made with Abraham they were initiated into that administration of the Covenant by the Sacrament of Circumcision unless he can prove that all that were in covenant and in the Jewish Church were circumcised But his own grant That some in the Covenant and Jewish Church as females and males under eight daies old were expresly excluded overthrows his own position and is enough for my purpose to prove that all in the covenant were not circumcised The reason why males afore the eighth day were not circumcised whatever it were is nothing for Mr. Gs. advantage but against him sith it doth more fully shew that God would not have them circumcised Nor need I bring a rule that no infant of Christians shall have the Sacrament of initiation till eighteen years or so which goes upon his mistake as if the instance I gave were as a proof of the time of baptism it being brought only to shew a reason of my denial of his assertion that the seal did follow the covenant It is enough for me that I prove as I have done in the second part of the Review s. 5. c. that the rule is that persons are not to be baptized till they be disciples or believers and that infants are not such Mr. G. addes Your third instances are of Adam Abel Noah page 36. of your answer and Melchisedec Lot Job pag. 4. Exercit. I answer either those were before the administration begun with Abraham and so before the institution of seals or such of them that were with or after him either they join not themselves to that administration and so were not to be sealed no more then the Proselytes of the Gate or if they did unite to the Church in Abrahams family then it is apparent they might lay claim to circumcision as other proselytes did And so indeed it is averred of Iob that he was circumcised by the Author of the book of true circumcision which is ascrrbed to Hierom cited by Iunius in his animadversion on Bellarmine Controv. 4. l. 3. cap. 16. Not. 13. Answ. Master Geree doth make shew of answering my allegation but doth indeed confirm my proof that sith Abel Noah Melchisedec Lot and many Proselytes of the gate were in the Covenant of grace yet had not any initial sign or seal as M. Geree calls it to seal the Covenant and some sealed after an initial seal was instituted though in the Covenant of grace therefore there is not such a connexion between the Covenant and the initial seal that therefore a man must have the seal initial because he is in the covenant of grace and that it was not from interest in the Covenant of grace that persons were circumcised but Gods special command upon such reasons as seemed best to him but is not a reason for us to imitate in another ordinance without the like command If one Author conceive Iob was circumcised many do conceive otherwise and there are more probable reasons he was not sith there 's no mention of his circumcision or his observing any of the rites of the Law or of any acquaintance he had with Israel or any thing else that might induce us to believe he had communion with the policy of Israel Master Geree saith further And wheras you say Lastly that the Jews comprehended in covenant and circumcised could not be baptized without faith and repentance I answer the reason is evident because baptism was a seal of a new administration and therefore they must join to that administration of the covenant as well as be in covenant before they could be baptized Answ. I am beholding to Mr. Geree who as before had given the reason why Melchisedeck Lot Iob were not circumcised though in Covenant because of their not joining themselves to that administration or their not uniting to the Church in Abrahams family so here again he doth not only grant what I allege but gives a reason of it also and such as quite overthrows his dispute For if it were true that the Jews that were in covenant were not to be â—aptizâ—d without faith and repentance then being in covenant is not a sufficient reason of an infants being baptized without faith and repentance and if baptism were a seal of a new administration then it must have a new rule and so the old rule of circumcision is no direction to us about baptism if Lot the Proselytes of the gate though in
covenant were not to be circumcised without joining to that administration or the Church in Abrahams family then right to circumcision was not from interest in the covenant common to all believers but something proper to that Church-state or administration which is now voided if therefore the Jews in covenant and circumcised must profess repentance and faith afore they were baptized because they must join to the new administration of the covenant then according to Mr. Gerees own confession according to the new administration of the Covenant faith and repentance are required of them that join to that administration of the Covenant And therefore whereas Mr. Geree addes we may therefore conclude that those that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it have right to the seal of initiation under that administration unless they be particularly excluded by God himself and so the major is firmly proved I may truly say it is firmly proved that they that are under the Gospel-covenant in any administration of it yet have not right to the seal of initiation under that administration barely from the Covenant without a command and that God himself hath excluded infants from baptism by Mr. Gerees own concession without faith and repentance and that in all this arguing Mr. G. hath dictated much and proved nothing Let 's see whether he speed better about proving the Minor SECT XVI That the Gospel-Covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such NOw the Minor saith he that children are under the Gospel-Covenant in the Christian administration of it that we prove by the Scriptures mentioned as first Gen. 17.7 I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee To comprehend the meaning of this place we are to consider What the privilege is that is here promised 2. what the extent of it is First for the privilege it self as Calvin hath well observed by vertue of this promise the Church was settled in Abrahams family and it was separated from the rest of the World as light from darkness And the people of Israel Abrahams posterity was the house and sheepfold of God And other nations like wild beasts ranging about without in the wilderness of the World And by this privilege the dignity of adoption-belonged to all the Israelites in common Rom. 9.4 To whom pertaineth the adoption And so though by nature they were no better than others yet by reason of this promise they had a birth-privilege whereby they were separated from others which is apparently held forth Gal. 2.15 We who are Jews by nature not sinners of the Gentiles as Mr. Blake hath truly observed And sith you grant the Jews a birth-privilege as p. 106. and p. 78. of your Answer you needed not have quarrelled with this plain proof But now among those that had this outward privilege of common adoption to be reputed children when the Gentiles were reputed as Dogs Matth. 15.26 there were some that were separated by the secret election of God and really made partakers of sanctifying and saving grace and so not only adopted outwardly and reputatively but also really in comparison of whom the other Israelites are sometimes spoken of as no sons of Abraham Rom. 9.6 7. Though externally they were the children of the Kingdom and in reference to the Gentiles they are so stiled Matthew 8.11 12. So then the privilege is that he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privileges of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Answ. It is true I granted page 78. of my Examen that the Jews had a birth-privilege yet denyed it to be from the Covenant of grace according to the substance of it as Mr. M. speaks but that special love God bare to Abrahams posterity Nor do I deny that the people of Israel till broken off were in common estimation Gods children children of the Kingdom nor Dogs nor unclean as the Gentiles and that these titles did belong to all by external denomination really to the elect Nor do I much gainsay that by vertue of the promise I will be a God to the seed of Abraham the Church was settled in Abrahams family though it doth not appear to me that the Apostle did so expound this promise but expresly contradistinguisheth the children of the promise to the children of the flesh Rom. 9.8 And his doctrine there is plain that the elect are they only to whom the promise I will be the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 was made yea Exercit. page 2 3. I expound the promise as in respect of some peculiar blessings belonging to Abrahams natural seed Nor did I quarrel with Mr. Blake for proving from Gal. 2 15. a birth-privilege belonging to the Jews but excepted against him for that he contended to have the seed of believing Gentile-parents under the Gospel to be under the first member of the division in the text to wit Jews by nature which exception I have made good in my Postscript to my Apology S. 9. which I intend to vindicate from Master Blakes Reply Vindic. foed cha 35. in that which followes But then what doth this advantage to prove Mr. Gs. Minor To children meaning all or else his conclusion can be but particular of believing Christians the gospel-Gospel-covenant is extended in the Christian Churches Is this the gospel-Gospel-covenant to make a people only reputatively and outwardly but not really adopted Is this that which circumcision did seal Is this the covenant of grace which the seal is to follow What kind of juggling is there with these men They contend the Covenant Gen. 17.7 to be the same with the Covenant of grace for substance and that they make to consist in saving graces the temporal benefits they refer to the administration that then was they will not have it called a mixt covenant and this covenant of grace they will have to be sealed by circumcision out of Rom. 4.11 and they say this was made to believers and their seed and thence they have salvation if they die in infancy and without this there is no ground of hope of the salvation of any infant deceased and they argue they are to have the seal because they are in covenant which if they understand not of that covenant of which that ordinance is the seal what colour is there to derive thence a title unto that seal on them who have interest in another covenant which it doth not seal Their argument is He hath right to the Conveyance who hath right to the Land but these men who dare not assert that the covenant of saving grace belongs to all believers natural children yet will have them all to have right to baptism which seals saving graces though perhaps a very few and those all unknown persons have right to that Covenant onely because a promise of
natural seed many Gentile believers have had their children persecutors not visible Church-members and may have still yea in that sense which Mr. Geree himself expounds it it was only verified of the natural posterity of Abraham yet not of every particular child of his but of the nation till Christs comming As for the dictate of Mr. G. they that do the works of Abraham may claim the promises of Abraham that be ordinary and essential parts of the covenant it intimates some promises of the covenant to be essential some not some ordinary some extraordinary parts of the covenant But these are new distinctions with which I meet not elsewhere nor know I how to understand what promises he makes ordinary nor what extraordinary what essential parts of the covenant what not That Covenant being but once made in my conceit therefore had all the promises of the same sort whether ordinary or extraordinary and a covenant being an aggregate of promises contains the promises as the matter and the making together as the form which are the essential parts of the Covenant there 's no promise but being the matter of the covenant is an essential part or rather all the promises together are the matter and each promise is an integral part of the whole number of promises And therfore his speech is not easie to be understood I grant that they who are of the faith of Abraham may claim the promise of Justification and other saving blessings But for visible Church-membership of natural posterity or other domestique promises made to Abraham neither the natural posterity of Abraham nor the truest believing Gentile can lay a just claim to them but that notwithstanding that promise God is free to make their children or the children of Gentile or Jew Infidels his people his visible church and to settle his worship with them Mr. Geree writes thus and that this privilege of having God to be the God of our seed was not personal and peculiar to Abraham but propagated to his seed may hence appear because the same in effect is promised to other godly Jews which is here promised to Abraham Deut. 30.6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed Answ. The promise to Abraham according to Mr. Gs. exposition was That he would be a God to all in regard of external denomination and external privilege of a Church and to the elect in regard of spiritual adoption grace and glory Sure this is not the same in effect with that Deut. 30.6 which is nothing of external privileges of a Church but of circumcising their hearts and the heart of their seed to love the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul that they might live which can be true only of the elect Besides it is promised to them at their return from captivity and upon their returning to the Lord and obeying his voice according to all that he commanded them that day they and their children with all their heart and all their soul v. 2. which sure cannot be ordinarily applied to them in their infancy and therefore this text is very impertinently alleged to prove an external privilege to infants of meer reputed believers even in their infancy Mr. Baxter himself in his Friendly accommodation with Mr. Bedford p. 361. hath these words The text seems plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant-state but in their adult Deut. 30. For first verse 2. the condition of the promise is expresly required not only of the parent but of the children themselves by name 2. And that condition is the personal performance of the same acts which are required of the parents viz. to return to the Lord and obey his voice with all their heart and soul. 3. The circumcision of the heart promised is so annexed to the act that it appeareth to be meant only of those that were capable of the act ver 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God so that it is not meant of those that are uncapable of so loving Mr. G. yet adds And thus much that place Act. 2.39 doth hold forth and contribute to infant-baptism to shew that children are comprehended in the Covenant with their fathers and both these last promises being of Evangelical privileges they must needs be communicable to all under the Gospel-covenant so then it remains that God still is in covenant with every believer and his seed Answ. That Acts 2.39 neither shews that children of believers are comprehended universally and necessarily with their parents nor contributes ought to infant-baptism is shewed in the forepart of this Review s. 5. and notwithstanding any thing said by Mr. Geree it yet remains to be proved that God is in Covenant with every believer and his seed The rest of that section of Mr. Geree is about my expounding Mr. Ms. second conclusion which I shall review as far as is meet when I come to it I have dispatched at last the answering those that argue syllogistically from the covenant and seal for infant-baptism But most go another way by laying down conclusions and framing hypotheses and I proceed to take a view of their writings SECT XVII Mr. Cottons The Assemblies and London Ministers way of arguing for Infant-baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the methode of the future progress in the Review expressed MR. John Cotton in his Dialogue ch 3. goes this way and expresseth himself in four things That 1. God made a covenant of grace with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 2. Gave him a commandment to receive the sign of circumcision the seal of the covenant of grace to him and his seed Gen. â—7 9 10. 3. The Lord hath given that Covenant of grace which was then to Abraham and his seed now to believers and our seed 4. And hath given us baptism in the room of circumcision The Assembly at Westminster in their confession of faith chap 25. art 2. assert That the visible Church consists of all the children of those that profess the true Religion and cite to prove it 1 Cor. 7.14 Acts 2.39 Ezekiel 16.20 21. Rom. 11.16 Gen. 3.15 and 17.7 of these one of the Texts to wit Gen. 3.15 I meet not with in the writings of the defenders of infant-baptism to my remembrance except once in Mr. Baxter to prove a conditional covenant made with all Adams posterity I do not imagine what use that Text is of to prove infants of those that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members Whether the seed of the woman be meant of all men or by excellency of Christ or of true believers which are all the senses I conceive yet how from any of these should be gathered that infants of professours of the true Religion as such and not as of humane kinde should be meant by the seed of the woman or that the bruising of the
Serpents head should prove infants of them that profess the true Religion to be visible Church-members is a riddle which I cannot yet resolve Ch. 28. art 4. they say Infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized and in the margin cite Gen. 17.7.9 with Gal. 3.9.14 Col. 2.11 12. Aâ—ts 2.38.39 Rom. 4.11 12. 1 Cor. 7.14 Mat. 28.19 Mark 10.13 14 15 16. Luke 18.15 what they would gather from these texts may be ghessed from the Directory about baptism where they direct the Minister to teach the people That baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace of our ingrafting into Christ c. That the promise is made to believers and their seed and that the seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church have by their birth-interest in the Covenant and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the Church under the Gospel no less then the children of Abraham in the time of the old Testament the covenant of grace for substance being the same and the grace of God and consolation of believers more plentiful then before that the Son of God admitted little children into his presence embracing them and blessing them saying For of such is the Kingdom of God that children by baptism are solemnly received into the bosome of the visible Church that they are Christians and federally holy before baptism and therefore are they baptized Most of which propositions are ambiguous few of them true or have any proof from the texts alleged in the Confession and if they were all true setting aside one or two which express the conclusion in a different phrase they would not infer the Conclusion The first proposition is ambiguous it being doubtful in what sense baptism is said to be a seal of the Covenant of grace whether in a borrowed or proper sense so as it be the definition or genus of it or onely an adjunct of it or whether it seal the making of the Covenant or the performing of it or the thing covenanted what they mean by the covenant of grace which is that covenant whether it seal all or a part of it whether it seal Gods covenanting to us or our covenanting to God Nor is there any proof for it from Rom. 4.11 which neither speaks of baptism nor of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams nor saith of his Circumcision that it was the seal of the Covenant of grace as they it is likely mean The next proposition is so ambiguous that Mr. M. and Mr. G. are driven to devise senses which the words will not bear to make it true as I shew in my Apology s. 9. The words seem to bear this sense That the promise of Justification adoption c. is made to believers and their seed But so it is apparently false contradicted by the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. and by other texts nor is it proved from Gen. 17.7 compared with Gal. 3.9.14 Acts 2.39 or any other of their texts yea in that sense it is disclaimed by Master Marshall and Master Geree The next is ambiguous also For how the seed of the faithful may be said to be born within the Church or what interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and what outward privileges they have by their birth or what outward privileges they have in like measure as the children of Abraham is as uncertain as the rest and how any of the texts prove it is uncertain Surely Gal. 3.9.14 speaks only of the privileges of Justification and Sanctification which Abrahams children by faith and no other not every believers posterity or natural seed have nor is there a word Gen. 17.7 of any privilege to our natural seed as such The next too is doubtful it being uncertain what they mean by the substance of the Covenant what they make accidental in it and what substantial nor is it easie to conceive what they mean when they say the grace of God and consolation of believers is more plentiful then before or how any of the texts prove it or what this is to their purpose that the enlargement of a believers comfort intitles his child to baptism nor what is meant when it is said That children by baptism are received into the bosom of the visible Church and yet after withheld from the Lords Supper without any Ecclesiastical censure nor do I know how they mean or prove them to be Christians or federally holy afore baptism For my part in those propositions I deprehend little truth or plain sense but that the Directory in that part is a meer riddle fitter for Schollars to study than for teaching of the people The London Ministers of whom it is likely a considerable part were of the Assembly in their Jus Divinum regim Eccl. page 32. speak thus So infants of Christian parents under the New Testament are commanded to be baptized by consequence for that the infants of Gods people in the old Testament were commanded to be circumcised Gen. 17. For the privileges of believers under the New Testament are as large as the privileges of believers under the old Testament and the children of believers under the New Testament are federally holy and within the covenant of God as well as the children of believers under the old Testament Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 And what objections can be made from infants incapacity now against their baptism might as well then have been made against their being circumcised And why children should once be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament the Lord of the Covenant and Sacrament no where forbidding them there can be no just ground And baptism succeeds in the room of Circumcision Col. 2.11 12. concerning which I say there 's no proof from Gen. 17. compared with Rom. 11.16 1 Cor. 7.14 to prove the children of believers federaly holy as they would nor is there any proof from Col. 2.11 12. to prove the succession of baptism in the room of circumcision And though infants have not a natural incapacity to be dipped in water yet they have a natural incapacity to profess faith in Christ which is now required to baptism though not required to circumcision And there is an objection that may be made against infant-baptism to wit the want of a command which could not be objected against infant male circumcision and this is a just ground to exclude infants from baptism yea the very same ground they give for excluding them the communion and the very same ground which Paedobaptists do continually in books and Sermons urge against Popish and Prelatical ceremonies But forasmuch as Mr. M. did direct his Defence of infant-baptism to the Assembly and Mr. Pryn in his suspension suspended p. 21. seems to have taken his book to be approved by the Assembly and he is of any I meet with in print likeliest to have produced their strength and for other reasons therefore I conceive my self bound to examine
the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself But all the infants of believing parents are in covenant and they are capable of the seal and there is no special bar put in against them by God himself Ergo They should be sealed Or thus All who since Abrahams time are foederati or Covenanters with God must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant unless they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by a particular dispensation All infants of believers since Abrahams time are foederati or covenanters with God neither uncapable of the seal nor exempted by a particular dispensation Ergo all infants of believers since Abrahams time must by Gods own appointment receive the seal of admission into covenant To which I answer Mr. M. tells me I must needs state thus the general Proposition But it is a pretty art he hath as elsewhere to call that my Minor which was his own not mine so here to say I must needs state the general Proposition thus which is of his own framing However he is not wronged that it is thus framed Let us then view it and try whether except in that of circumcision there be any truth sense or consideratenesse in it As for circumcision if it be meant onely of it then the Conclusion can be of it only and as the truth is his argument concludes only that infants of believers are to be circumcised 1. I had in my Examen noted a fault in his Argument in his Sermon in that his Conclusion was of a sign of the Covenant indefinite and not of baptism only whereas the Lords Supper is also a sign of the Covenant which he would not have delivered to infants And to it he answers That he clearly in his Sermon shewed this Proposition to be only meant of the initial sign and not of the other But this doth not excuse his fault who taking upon him to prove infant-baptism concludes another thing in the argument though he might perhaps some pages of where the Reader looks not for an explication of his argument limit his speech to the initial seal And for what he tells me he is sure that I who durst baptize an infant known to me to be regenerate durst not give the other Sacrament to it there being self examination and ability to discern the Lords body prerequired to the one not to the other I told him in my Apology s. 10. I durst do the one as I durst do the other and that self examination and ability to discern the Lords body is as well required to baptism as the Lords Supper Acts 2.38 8.37 Rom. 6.3 4. But were it that I durst not do the one as the other yet this would not help Mr. M. who would prove the title to the initial seal by that proof of interest in the Covenant which will conclude as well title to the after as the initial seal For the proof is usually the seal must follow the covenant which if true then not only the initial but also the after-seal must follow it But waving this is the fault mended in his Defence doth he conclude definitely of baptism here nay notwithstanding he was warned yet chorda semper oberrat eadem he still runs into the same fault concluding in both forms of an initial seal indefinitely not definitely of baptism and therefore may be interpreted to conclude of circumcision as well as of baptism yea rather his assertion if there be any good sense of it is of the circumcising then baptizing of infants sith all his proof is about the initial sign of circumcision and the limitations he puts into the Major are that it may be true of circumcision But this is not all the fault in his new forms notwithstanding I complained in my Examen sect 3. of his ambiguities which I shewed in my Apology s. 9 10. and Postscript s. 6. yet as if either he could not or would not speak distinctly he retains the same fault in his Defence Whereas I conceive the covenant of grace now contains only the promise of saving grace he saith p 90. The Covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church privileges but shews not where nor in which covenant of grace there are promises of the administration of saving grace in outward ordinances and Church privileges It is true circumcision is called the Covenant Gen. 17.13 by a Metonymia as Mr. M. confesseth page 32 but not because it was contained in the Covenant it is not Metonymia continentis pro contento but signati pro signo now that the sign should be said to be contained in the covenant is scarse good sense sure it is not meet to be used in disputes And therefore whoever useth the covenant of grace for any other than the covenant of saving grace or saith it contains any other than promises of saving grace seems to affect ambiguities unmeet for dispute as not willing to be understood Again page 92. he expresseth the covenant of grace he means to be that Gen. 17.7 and he cannot but know it to have diverse meanings one that God will be a God to Abraham and his spiritual seed which he confesseth pag. 102. to be the elect when he saith Secondly by the word seed was meant the children of the promise the elect Rom. 9.8 and in this sense it is denyed by him that God hath made a promise of saving grace to the natural seed of believers and so they are not in this covenant in this sense Yet the Directory when it speaks of baptism as the seal of the covenant means it in this sense as the words before recited shew for what else can be meant when they distinguish between interest in the covenant and right to the seal of it and the ouâ—ward privileges of the Church under the Gospel And Rom. 4.11 is alleged in the Confession of Faith for the proof of this that it is the seal of the Covenant of grace now that text speaks of being a seal of the righteousness of faith which is a saving grace and in the Confession of faith ch 7. art 3. and in the greater Catechism they make the Covenant of grace to offer life and salvation by Christ to promise faith and to be made with Christ and in him with all the elect as his seed and so the Argument from the Covenant of grace to the Seal must mean it thus or else it is frivolous For if the Seal must follow the Covenant it must follow the Covenant which is sealed by it which is only the promise of saving grace there being no shew of consequence in it infants of believers have not the covenant of saving grace but of outward Ordinances and Church privileges therefore they are to be sealed with that seal which seals only saving graces And yet methinks they should not have avouched as the Directory doth that the posterity
or which is all one any medium to prove his Conclusion by but only repeating the Conclusion in different phrases and those some of them new minted gibberish or non-sense sometimes the Major sometimes the Minor sometimes both However sith it is my task I shall view what he saith Page 92. he saith thus Which is apparent in the very first institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting Covenant to be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee thou shalt keep my Covenant therefore and this is my Covenant which ye shall keep every man-child among you shall be circumcised and afterward in the fourteenth the seal is by a metonymia called the Covenant for that it is apparent not only that God commanded them who were in covenant to be circumcised but that they should therefore be circumcised because of the Covenant or in token of the Covenant between God and them and he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant So that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in Covenant I therefore concluded that by Gods own will such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal supposing still they were capable of it So that to lay circumcision upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together for the command is the cause of the existence of the duty but the Covenant of grace is the motive to it Answ. Here is all Mr. Ms. strength to prove his Major that it was Gods will that such as are in Covenant from Abrahams time and so forward should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant which he after alters thus Such as enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal But there is nothing but confusedness and impertinency in all this passage 1. He tells us There is the institution of an initial seal Gen. 17.7 9 10 14. which he must understand of an initial seal in general or indefinite or else it reacheth not to baptism and so it is impertinently alleged But it is palpably false that there is in those words any other initial seal instituted then circumcision and I dare boldly say it is a meer dotage to maintain that in those words there is any rule about baptism or any other ordinance of God then circumcision The very words are thou shalt keep my Covenant and this covenant is demonstrated to be male-circumcision and no other of which the time and part are precisely set down 2. He should prove that all that were in covenant had title to the initial seal or right but his Conclusion is of their duty not of their title Now it cannot be said to be infants duty the command was not given to them nor doth Mr. M. I think assert it as their duty but as their privilege and yet all that the text inferreth or Mr. M. concludes from it concerns the connexion between the duty of circumcising which belongs not to infants and the covenant not between the Privilege of circumcision passively taken which belongs to infants and the Covenant which is another impertinency 3. Be it granted that the proposition to be proved is of duty in parents or Ministers yet he is necessitated to grant the command was the cause of the existence of the duty and more plainly page 182. The formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God which if true there 's no duty without the command whatever interest there might be in the Covenant and therefore the proposition is true all that enter into Covenant ought to receive the seal if it be commanded not otherwise and so neither infant-circumcision nor infant-baptism can be proved from the bare interest in the covenant without a particular command for each of them 4. He saith the Covenant of grace was the motive page 182. the Covenant of grace or their Church-state was the motive to it and the thing it related to But he tells us not to whom it was a motive A motive is an impulsive cause whereby a person is perswaded or induced to do a thing But it was not the motive to infants for they conceived not of it His words the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant do intimate that he means the covenant was the motive to God to give the command But what it makes to his purpose I do not conceive For though that were the motive to God yet Gods motive is not the rule of the duty but his command to us nor the evidence of our privilege but his declaration of his Will But be it a motive to Abraham yet it was but a motive for the more full engagement of him to that which without that motive he had been to do by reason of the Command nor any further evidence of privilege then was imported by other Declaration of Gods will 5. Though Circumcision did relate to the Covenant and it was received as an evidence of the Covenant yet this proves not that it was received by each person because he was in covenant nor that the being in Covenant was the rule of the using that rite that they which were in Covenant should have it and they that were not in Covenant should not have it which is the thing to be proved but is certainly false as I have by many instances shewed 6. If all this were granted yet that this rule did reach further then the use of circumcision is not proved here and what is brought elsewhere shall be shewed in it's place to be much short of proving any such general rule about an initial seal as is here by Mr. M. averred But let us see what his proof amounts to about circumcision 1. He urgeth That circumcision is called a token of the Covenant But this proves no more then this that the use of Circumcision was to be a sign God made such a Covenant and would fulfill it not that every one that was in Covenant was to be circumcised or that every one that was to be circumcised was in covenant 2. That it is termed the Covenant But this proves no more than the former sith it is acknowledged to be so called only by a metonymia of putting the thing signifyed for the sign 3. The particle therfore is thus urged God not only commanded them who were in covenant 〈◊〉 b◠circumcised but that they should therfore be circumcised because of the covenant or in token of the Covenant between God them But 1. The particle therfore though it be in our last translation yet in the Hebrew it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and may be rendered And thou
or But thou as by the Tigâ—â— it is 〈◊〉 by Parcus tu autem Piscator tu verò 2. Let it be read therefore and the inference be from the Covenant yet that the inference is from the promise in the seventh verse onely and not from the eighth verse which is next or the rest of the promises v. 4 5 6 cannot be shewed 3. Let these things be granted yet that it imports this rule to be taken from the Covenant those who are in Covenant are to be circumcised not others hath no colour of proof nor any shew of truth in it sith it is clear in the case of Ishmael to whom that promise diâ— not belong nor any in that covenant yet he was to be circumcised and others were not to be circumcised to whom the promises were made 4. He urgeth thus And he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant so that because the initial seal was added to the Covenant and such as received it received it as an evidence of the Covenant or because they were in covenant To which I reply Two waies a man may be said to break Gods covenant one by breaking the command which was in reference to the Covenant or enjoyned in testimony of it and if this be his sense then Mr. Ms. speech is trifling when he saith he that rejected or neglected the seal is said not only to break Gods commandment but his Covenant sit being all one to break the command and the covenant The other sense is he hath broken my covenant that is as Piscat sch on Gen. 17.14 as much as is in him by depriving himself of the grace of God promised in the Covenant For otherwise the incredulity of man doth not make void the faith of God Rom. 3.3 But take it either way it proves not that which was to be proved that the rule about circumcising persons was their interest in the Covenant All that follows on this is that the observance of circumcision was strictly enjoined under this penalty that otherwise they should be cut off from Gods people and so deprived of the benefit of the Covenant signified but this doth not prove that every one circumcised was in the Covenant and should have the benefit of the Covenant So that though it be granted which Mr. M. saies That to lay Circumcision upon Gods command and the Covenant of grace too are well consistent together Yet his Major is not proved That it was Gods Will that such as are in Covenant from Abrahams time and so forward should be sealed with the initial seal of the Covenant supposing them only capable of the seal and no special bar put in against them by God himself Nor is Mr. M. more happy in answering my exceptions Whereas you allege saith he concerning Melchisedec Lot Job we find no such thing that they either received this seal of Circumcision or were tyed to it I reply it s very hard for you to prove that Melchisedeck was then alive and had he been alive he was of an higher Order and above that Paedagogy Answ. I grant it cannot be demonstratively proved that he was alive yet it being probable he was who not many years before met Abraham though he were in Covenant yet being not appointed to be circumcised it overthrows the proposition by which Mr. Ms. Enthymeme was to be proved That all that are foederati must be signati Yea Mr. Ms. answer here That he was above that Paedagogy doth plainly intimate that circumcision was peculiar to that Paedagogy and so the rule about circumcision not obligatory to Christian Gentiles to whom that Paedagogy is abolished and who have a Priest of an higher Order to wit that of Melchisedec As for Lot he denies not that he then lived but saith That no Scripture saith he was not circumcised which he saith of Job also whose time is uncertain by reason of thâ— Scripture-silence though probably he was of Esaus posterity But in matters of fact à non Scripto ad non factum non valet consequentia Nevertheless for Lot it seems to me very unlikely he should be circumcised living then in Sodom not in Abrahams house and no mention made of him when Abraham circumcised his own house and Lots posterity being after uncircumcised Jerem. 9.26 And for Job what time soever he lived it is likely he was an Edomite who are reckoned for uncircumcised Ier. 9.26 and there are no passages that give any intimation of his acquaintance with Israel But if these serve not the turn the example of Cornelius undeniably uncircumcised and not blamed for want of it though undoubtedly in the Covenant of grace being one that feared God with all his house and his prayers and alms heard therefore he was not to be circumcised though in the Covenant of grace nor all that enter into Covenant ought to be sealed with the initial seal though capable and no bar put in against them by God I instanced in male infants of Jews under eight daies old who were not to be circumcised though in Covenant Mr. M. answers To that of infants there was a peculiar exemption of them by God himself whether for any typical reason or in regard they were not fit in nature to undergo so sharp a pain as was to be endured in Circumcision before the seventh and Critical day was past or whether for any other cause I dispute not it is sufficient God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old Answ. This is a grant of the objection and overthrows the proposition of Mr. M. in his Sermon All that are in Covenant are to be sealed And the forbidding being onely by not appointing it the proposition can be tâ—ue onely in this sense All those in Covenant are to be circumcised to whom it is appointed and no other But infants are in Covenant and to them it is appointed to be sealed with the initial seal in the New Testament Ergo. Wherein I should grant the Major and deny the Minor and infer that without appointment interest in the Covenant did not make capable no not of Circumcision though it 's likely infants might have born it in the end of the seventh day as well as on the eighth I alleged that no females in Abrahams family though in Covenant were to be circumcised To this Mr. M. answers For the women they were not Subjectum capax circumcisionis there was in them a natural impediment against it therefore could it not be enjoined them and suppose some men amongst them or some who turned proselytes to them had not had a praepâ—tium as some sort of Eunuchs this Ordinance had not reached them whether the wisdom of God purposely chose a sign that women might not be capable of receiving it for some typical use as some conjecture it is sufficient they were not capable of it and were exempted from it by God himself Answ. If it be true which
interest suspended But 1. still Mr. Blake speaks of the Lords Supper and of baptism as of privileges meerly whereas the Scripture speaks of each as a duty as well as a privilege 2. By the same distinction an answer is given to him concerning infants baptism that though they have the right to it yet by reason of infancy the actual interest of it is to be suspended they being no more able to profess the faith till they be grown to some riper age then a Cradle King to rule a Kingdome So that Mr. Blakes answers yield more exceptions against Mr. Ms. argument confirm it not at al but shew how we may grant his Major and yet so limit it that it will be too short of proving baptism of federate persons in infancy and these passages of Master Blake appear to be Cavils and not Anâ—wers He next sets upon the fifth section of the first part of my Review and excepts 1. That I shew not where to find Mr. Baillees words But if he had looked into my Letter mentioned he had found them quickly in the third section 2. That I denyed the Metaphor of a seal to be rightly made the genus of a rite as of baptism to which he replies in his flirting fashion We shall expect another letter to shew Saint Pauls definition Rom. 4.11 to be alike light who runs upon the same errour if an errour when he saies that Circumcision is a sign and seal there is the genus and the differentia lies in these words to distinguish it from other signs and seals of the righteousness of faith The nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure and the whole efficacy of it in the use And how else then should the nature and use of it be held out To which I answer Paul doth not give a definition Rom. 4.11 of circumcision much less doth he define a Sacrament in general Every Definition is reciprocal with the thing defined but Mr. Bl. I presume will not say every circumcision is a seal of the righteousness of faith and every seal of the righteousness of faith is circumcision Besides individuals are not wont to be defined but what is there said is said of the singular circumcision of Abraham and no other The title given to Abrahams circumcision doth but shew what the use of it was to him not what was the constant nature and use of it on and to others Which appears from the particularizing circumstances so exactly noted by the Apostle to wit the times of his justification and circumcision which do shew that it was appropriated to Abrahams circumcision on his own body what he there said of Circumcision There is no more reason to make this the definition of Circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith then to make that 1 Tim 6.10 the root of all evil the definition of the love of money or that Heb. 6.16 the end of all strife the definition of an oath or that v. 19. the anchor of the soul firm and stable the definition of hope or that Heb. 11.1 the evidence of things not seen the definition of faith A seal cannot be the genus of it being a Metaphor for a Metaphor shews not what it is but what it is like Circumcision is an action as it is from the agent as in the subject a passion The relation that comes to it is not from its nature but by institution and is the end of it rather than the genus rather for what it is than what it is A seal is an artificial body compound of a substance and figure which cannot be said of Circumcision What Mr. Bl. saith that the nature of a Sacrament stands in a figure cannot be true of such a figure as is in a Seal for so baptism the Passeover the Lords Supper should be no Sacrament sith they do not make any figure on the body nor of figure of speech for so a Sacrament should not be a visible sign but an audible I grant the use of it is to resemble by a visible sign some other thing as the breaking bread Christs body broken and in that sense it may be called a figure as Augustine called the bread the figure of Christs body But the use belongs to the difference to distinguish it from the same action or passion used to another purpose not to the genus And yet sign and seal of the righteousnesse of faith cannot be the difference to distinguish a Sacrament from the preaching of the Gospel for the preaching of the Gospel by word or writing is a sign or seal of the righteousness of faith What is said Rom. 4.11 that Abraham received the sign of circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith is not all one with this a seal of the Covenant of grace For it is added which he had yet being uncircumcised and therefore was a sign not of a promise or covenant concerning a thing to be done but of a thing accomplished or already done I see not how Rom. 4.11 either the general nature of a Sacrament or the special nature of circumcision may be said to be defined Nor do I conceive it true which Mr. Bl. saith the whole efficacy of a Sacrament is in the use I suppose baptism and the Lords Supper have their efficacy in comforting moving to holiness love c. after the use The nature and use of a Sacrament may be otherwise held out then Mr. Bl. doth which I now omit It is sufficient at present to shew the emptiness of Mr. Bls. dictates And for my rejecting of the common use of the terms of seals of the Covenant and initial seals as Synonymous to sacraments and baptism especially in disputes wherein proper terms should be used I have given sufficient reason from the abuses of Paedobaptists inferring errours from a late devised term and imposing on mens consciences yet I profess if baptism were granted to be a seal or initial seal that I think that it would not follow that it hath that relation to the Covenant that infants in Covenant must not be denied it but that it is a frivolous argument infants are in covenant therefore they must have the initial seal of the Covenant for which if I had no other reason yet that one of Mr. Bl. that though a person be in Covenant and have right to the seal yet he is not to have it till the appointed time it were sufficient to justifie my censure Mr. Bl. excepts against my speech that to have the promise and to be a disciple or believer are not all one for he conceives to have a promise in Scripture phrase is to possesse it as those Jews after the flesh did possess Rom. 9.4 And how to possesse a promise without faith he doth not yet understand Whereto I reply that I find the term promise used in Scripture sometimes metonymically for the thing promised as Lukeâ—4 â—4 49 when Christ saith I send the promise of the Father upon you he means
be blessed from access to him As for Mr. Bls. question who say that the covenant of grace without any other command is a command to baptize infants I think Mr. Stephens said it when he made a convertibility between the word of promise and the word of command and whereas Mr. Bl. saith if Christ had never given a command for it neither old nor young ought to have been baptized it is true nor in my speech of his and Mr. Stephens tenet did I mean when I said without any other command to exclude the institution of baptism but it being supposed to be instituted by Christ Paedobaptists do frequently prove a command to baptise infants by vertue of being in covenant without any particular command of baptizing them or any other description that comprehends them as Mr. Marshalls first argument in his Sermon Mr. Bls. second argument Vindic. foed chap. 43. sect 1. sâ—â—w Mr. Geree calls denying infant-baptism A defalking the Covenant and Mr. Bl. himself maintains the third speech that the command to baptize disciples is all one as to command to baptize persons in covenant when he saith p. 335. every disciple is in covenant and everyone in covenant is a disciple And for his Arguments asserting that infants are of Christs disciples what I have met with either are answered already in the second part of this Review or will be answered in this part iâ— God permit my conceit being still more confirmed by fuller examination of them that they are very frivolous SECT XX. The exceptions which in the first part of my Review sect 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the covenant and initial seal are confirmed against Mr. Blake vindic foed 42. ch sect 3. Mr. Bl. proceeds to vindicate the proofs for the reality of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal from Gen. 17. and Acts 2.38 39. from my Answers And to my answer that the particle rendered therefore Gen. 17.9 may be rendered and or but thou he saith 1. we have no reason but that it may be an illative as well as a copulative and being an illative particle he hath no exception against the strength of it Whereto I reply There need be no reason given why it should be read and or but and not therefore but this that either of those are the usual acceptions of the particle that and is the most frequent use of it that it may well be so in that place and that learned interpreters do so render it Which being not denyed there is no strength in that proof which is made barely from the term therefore Gen. 17.9 to infer that to them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or the Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace For he that will prove from it must assert that it must be rendered therefore for a certain conclusion cannot be inferred from an uncertain medium Whereas Mr Bl. only asserts it may be an illative as well as a copulative particle and not that it must be he intimates a grant of what I answer that it may be a copulative as well as an illative particle What he adds that it being an illative particle I have no exception against the strength of it is manifestly untrue sith I added three more exceptions against the proof of that proposition from thence But Master Blake proves the same from verse 10. taking in Acts 7.8 and would have me at more leisure find answer to this argument That which God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it but God calls circumcision by the name of a covenant Ergo they ought not to be separated To which I answer First if the Conclusion be good then circumcision and the Covenant ought not to be separated but the covenant according to Master Marshall Master Blake c. remains the same therfore according to Master Blake circumcision ought to remain still to our children they being in covenant Secondly If the Conclusion were good then the females and males afore the eight day being in covenant must be circumcised Thirdly The conclusion is neither of those propositions which were to be proved to wit 1. That the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the Covenant For though it were granted that circumcision and the covenant ought not to be separated yet it proves not the reason of this conjunction to be from interest in the covenant sith it may be yea is indeed to be deduced from the command 2. To them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace For the Conclusion of Mr. Bl. doth not say any thing at all concerning the initial seal of the Christian Church but only of circumcision Fourthly To his Syllogism I answer 1. That God calls circumcision the Covenant only by a metonymia of the thing signified for the sign 2. That ought not to be separated from it may be understood of every person that hath interest in the covenant or of every person to whom it is commanded and when it is not dispensed with in the former sense I deny the major it is not true that what God himself calls by the name of a covenant ought not to be separated from it or that Gods calling any sign the Covenant proves that all in covenant are to have that sign on them For neither was it true of circumcision sith neither were males afore the eight day or females in covenant nor any in the wilderness to be circumcised God either not commanding it or dispensing with the observation of it nor is it true of any other sign called the Covenant if there be any without Gods command undispensed with Mr. Blake saith further 2. Let him consider the relation in which the Apostle puts this Sacrament of circumcision to the covenant Rom. 4.11 an instituted appointed sign and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seal is not to be divided from that which it signifies and seals circumcision was an instituted appointed sign and seal of the covenant therefore it is not to be divided from it Answ. 1. Neither doth the Apostle Rom. 4.11 make circumcision the sign and seal of the Covenant mentioned Gen. 17. nor of any covenant to be kept for the time to come but of a benefit Abraham had before obtained Gen. 15.6 to wit righteousness by faith being yet uncircumcised nor is any ones circumcision besides Abrahams on his own person called the seal of the righteousness of faith 2. The Conclusion is neither of the Propositions to be proved that the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the covenant that to them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or the Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace 3. The Major proposition is true in this sense an
of Abraham had not the privilege by the covenant and then if it were granted that our children by that covenant had the privilege of Abrahams child yet it could not be proved thence that every child of ours hath the privilege of the Covenant sith every child of Abraham had it not Nor doth Mr. Bls. proviso at all help him For 1. it being granted that we in Gospel-times are under the same covenant as was Isaac and that we are taken in though without the limitations first of the covenant onely as it contains promises of saving grace secondly onely of true believers before God I deny it yet it follows not that our children are taken in 2. Nor if it were true that our children are taken in doth it follow that all our children are taken in by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 sith neither all Abrahams children nor all Isaacs children were taken in by it Esau being expressly excluded Rom. 9 10 11 12 13. and elsewhere nor doth God stile himself the God of Esau as he did of Jacob. But Mr. Blake saith my instance from Gen. 17.19 Heb. 11.9 is very weak to prove that the Covenant was not made to every child of Abraham Ishmael himself was in Covenant though not established in covenant as God there and verse 21. promised concerning Isaac nor his seed never received appears not alone by the sign and seal which he received vers 23. which yet is sufficient for God to seal to a blank is very strange to sign a covenant to a man never in Covenant but also from Gal. 4.30 what saith the Scripture cast out the bond-woman and her son for the son of the bond woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman A man cast out of Covenant was before casting out in Covenant ejection supposes admission unless we will give way to Mr Tombs his dream of ejection by non-admission He was cast out after the time of the solemnity of his admission by circumcision as may be seen Gen. 22. Answ. The Apostle Rom. 9. answering the objection that if the Jews were rejected from being the children of God then the promise falls or takes not effect which God made to Abraham and his seed to be a God to them answers verse 7 8 9 in these express words neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called That is they which are children of the flesh these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed For this â—is the word of promise at this time will I come and Sarah shall have a Son Which words if they do not affirm that the promise or covenant Gen. 17.7 was not made to all Abrahams seed and particularly that it was not made to Ishmael I cannot perceive any pertinency in the Apostles speech to the answering the objection made nor know how to understand his words nor do I remember that I ever met with an interpreter which did not thence conceive that the Apostle in those words did assert that the promise or covenant was not made to Ishmael Some I have produced Exam. part 3. S. 4. so conceiving and many more might be alleged if it were necessary But the words of God to Abraham Gen. 17.19 20 21. do sufficiently prove that the Covenant Gen. 17.7 was not made to Ishmael and therefore he was not in Covenant by Gods act of promise For when Abraham upon Gods promise concerning Sarah and her son ver 15 16. had laughed verse 17. and petitioned for Ishmael verse 18. God answers verse 19. by repeating his promise concerning Isaac and saith he would establish his Covenant with him for an everlasting Covenant and with his seed after him verse 20. Then tells him he heard him concerning Ishmael and recites what he would do for him which expresseth how far he had heard his petition And then follows verse 21. But my Covenant will I establish with Isaac which bâ—ing adversative hath this plain sense that he would do that for Ishmael which he had expressed verse 20. But he would establish his Covenant that is confirm and perform what he had promised before verse 7 8. in Isaac not in Ishmael he promised not to be a God to Abraham and his seed by Ishmael in their generations nor to give them the Land of Canaan As for what Master Blake saith that Ishmael himself was in Covenant though not established in Covenant it seems to intimate that he conceives that God made the Covenant to him but did not establish it But sure God makes no Covenant with any which he doth not establish if he did he should not be true Nor is there any such emphasis in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will establish which doth intimate that the Covenant was made to Ishmael but established that is confirmed and to be certainly performed onely to Isaac for the phrase used elsewhere Gen. 9.9 11. doth express no more than is meant v. 12. this is the token of the Covenant I make between me and you As for Master Blakes proof that Ishmael was in Covenant because he was circumcised Gen. 17.23 it rests upon these unproved false suppositions 1. That circumcision was appointed to men because they were in covenant with God 2. That God did by circumcision sign the covenant to him that was circumcised· 3. That every one that was appointed by God to be circumcised was in covenant As for the speech that God doth not seal to a blank it is a speech the Scripture useth not and it having various senses may be true in some sense in other false A blank is such a paper as hath no writing in it or wherein there is some empty space left to write more in whether persons names or promises or other matter By Gods sealing Mr. Bl. means the using of Circumcision baptism the Passeover the Lords Supper according to Gods appointment That which he conceives to be sealed thereby is the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which he makes all one with the Covenant of grace and by proving every Sacrament to be a Seal of the Covenant of grace from Rom. 4.11 his meaning should be that God seals in the administrators right use of every Sacrament to every person that he is in Covenant that he hath the righteousness of faith else God should seal to a blank But in that sense I do aver it to be most true that God doth seal to a blank that is that many thousands had circumcision the Passeover baptism and the Lords supper according to Gods institution and appointment who were never in Covenant with God nor did God seal that is assure to them their interest in the Covenant Genesis 17. or the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times or the righteousness of faith But in this sense I grant it to be true that God doth not seal to a blank that is when he appoints any sign or seal
all one which to assert were ridiculous And who will believe that I attribute as much to the Covenant respective to this seal when I say Examen page the seventieth eight That the common privilege of Circumcision belonging to the Jews did not arise from the Covenant of grace according to the substance of it but according to the administration that then was as Master Marshall to the Command when he said The Command was the formal reason of the Jews being circumcised When I do not at all make circumcision to arise from the Covenant as any reason of the duty much less the formal reason of it but as from the occasion of it whereas Master M. makes the command the very formal reason of the existence of the duty SECT XXI The ten Exceptions of the first part of my Review against Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38 39. for the connexion between Covenant and seal are vindicated from Master Blakes answer Vindic. Foederis ch 37 43. MR. Blake addes some snatches against my ten exceptions to Paedobaptists exposition of Acts 2.38 39. To the first which was that the promise is not proved to be that Genesis 17.7 and Acts 3.25 Acts 2.30 lead us to some other he saith when a promise is mentioned and a seal any man but he will presently understand that promise which is ratified by such a Seal To which I reply Where is there mention of a seal or of a promise sealed or to be sealed as he speaks If there were is there no other promise to be ratified by such a Seal but that Did circumcision seal no other promise but that Doth the Scripture give the least hint of sealing that promise Gen. 17.7 understood as Paedobaptists expound it that God would be a God to every believer and to his seed in respect at least of visible Church-membership yea though he be a believer onely by profession They use to tell us that Circumcision seals the righteousness of faith from Rom. 4.11 But to seal this and to seal the promise Gen. 17.7 as Paedobaptists do rack rather than expound the words are as much different as are the payment of Gold and lead Have not learned men expounded the promise some of that mentioned ver 38. of the gift of the holy Ghost some of other promises why then doth Master Blake so ineptly intimate me to be singular in my conceit why doth he so falsely insinuate that no more than bare words can be found for my exposition when I bring two texts to confirm it and Mr. Bl. saith not a word to infirm my alleging them what he refers me to in his 37. ch and Mr. Cobbet shall be examined in its place To the second which was that the promise is Acts 2.39 is expounded 1. of a promise of a thing to come whereas it may seem rather from Acts 13.32 33. to be meant of a promise already fulfilled 2. That the thing to come promised was some outward privilege to be conferred on them and their children Mr. Blake saith yet he quotes no man for this exposition of a thing to come but on the contrary quotes Mr. Cobbet in the margin against it It is meant of a present right for as yet they were not broken off from the olive nor Gentiles graffed in Answ. 1. That Paedobaptists do understand the words Acts 2.39 of a promise of some thing to come appears 1. in that many of them make it the same with this I will be a God to a believer and his seed So Master Marshall Defence page 126. Mr. Drew ubi supra Mr. Blake out of Calvin Vindic. foederis page 270. and others Now a promise that he will be a God to them is a promise of a thing to come 2. In that they disclaim the supplement is fulfilled as Mr. Cobbet Just. Vindic. part 1. ch 2. sect 3. and usually as Beza the English Directory Mr. Blake and others expound it the promise is made which proves it is according to them meant of something to come not of a thing past for if it were it should be a promise fulfilled Mr. Cobbet it is true saith the promise in praesenti is to you in respect of external right but then he must needs mean it that the promise was in praesenti made of external right to come or else he must mean it of a promise fulfilled which he denies And for the other that Paedobaptists do expound it of outward privilege to be conferred on them and their children besides Mr. Cobbets words cited and other in the same section Mr. Hudson Vindic. page 223. saith This promise Acts 2.39 is that external covenant to which baptism doth belong and the Ashford Disputants for Infants-baptism grant That the promise of the eternal inheritance life and salvation is not made much less made good to any upon terms of the parents faith but upon our own personal belief and obedience but the promise of outward privileges and of right to participation of Ordinances as to be baptized and inchurcht this belongs to children upon their parents faith and in this last sense it is that Peter saies the promise is to you and your children c. i. e. you and yours have the privilege of right to baptism To my third exception that to you is taken as if it were meant of those persons to whom he spake as then believers and under that formal consideration Mr. Blake saith I do not interprete it of any present explicit faith in Christ as the Messiah but now this conviction that so evidently appeared did evidence them to be in an hopeful way and with that Scribe not to be far from the Kingdom of God and therefore he takes his opportunity and presseth it on to come into the way of believers in Christ Jesus Answ. This grant is sufficient first to justify my exception secondly to overthrow Mr. Blakes and other Paedobaptists inference from this text 1. That in this text the Covenant in New Testament times is held out in this latitude to believers and their seed Vindic. foed chap. 37. For if they had not any present explicit faith in Christ as the Messiah then they were not believers 2. That this speech the promise is to you and to your children is equipollent to this promise I will be a God to believers and their seed for if they were not then believers it had been false if the Apostle had said as they would have him the promise that God will be a God to believers and their seed is in praesenti to you and your children when they were not believers To my fourth Exception that your children is expounded of their infant-children yea it is carried as if of them onely he saith to this is sufficient spoken ch 37. I shall therefore look back to that chapter page 270. he saith Acts 2.39 an effectual call cannot be meanâ— which the Apostle calls a call according to purpose proper onely to the elect so the visible
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-covenant-grace That which Master Cobbet saith that the righteousness of faith according to the covenant Gen. 17.7 which containeth the promise of justification was by circumcision visibly sealed unto the Jewes their children by Gods own appointment circumcision being in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith it self and not meerly in a personal respect to Abraham as applyed by his faith to justification hath either none or very little truth For though it be true that the promise Gen. 17.7 was of the righteousness of faith according to the more hidden sense of the words yet it was so onely to the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith Rom. 4.12 16. Gal. 3.7 9 29. Nor was circumcision appointed by God to seal it to Jewes and their children nor circumcision in the Sacramental nature of it a visible seal of the righteousness of faith nor is any mans circumcision termed in the Scripture a seal of the righteousness of faith but Abrahams which was not a seal as applyed by his faith to his justification but as a seal to him that he had the righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that all that believe as he did shall be justified as he was Rom. 4.11 12. Master Cobbet addes Nor will it suffice to say that covenant was a mixt covenant It held forth temporal things indeed but by vertue of a covenant of grace Psal. 111.5 as doth the promise now 1 Tim. 4.8 But it holds forth also spiritual things in the external right and administration thereof to all albeit in the internal operation as to some The promises are to them all Rom. 9.4 Scil. in the former sense and yet ver 8. some onely are the children of the promise and the choice seed in that general covenant Scil. in respect of the saving efficacy of the covenant upon them v. 6. And the same distinction is now held out in such sort amongst persons in Church-estate Ans. It sufficeth against those that make the covenant Gen. 17. to be a covenant of Evangelical grace onely and make other promises of temporal things to be onely administrations of it and make circumcision a seal of the covenant of grace because it was the tâ—ken of that covenant to say that 〈◊〉 covenant Gen. 17.7 was a mixt covenant containing promises proper to Abrahams natural posterity as well as Evangelical to his Spiritual and 〈◊〉 the covenant is rather to be denominated from the former which are more manifestly held forth in it then the latter and that the reason why circumcision was appointed was the signifying and assuring the former rather then the latter and so the circumcising of infants was not from interest Evangelical but national or proper to the people of Abraham Nor is Master Cobbets exception of any validity that because there is a promise of the life that now is 1 Tim. 4.8 therefore the covenant now is mixt For the promise of the life that now is is not of any outward inheritance peculiar to the godly and their children as Abraham had of the Land of Canaan for him and his but of fatherly care and sanctified use of outward things Nor doth Psal. 111.5 prove that the inheriting Canaan being great and prosperous Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. were by vertue of a covenant of grace but it rather appears from many places Deut. 28. c. Heb. 8.6 that they were by the covenant of works in keeping the law of Moses unto which circumcision did oblige Gal. 5.3 The promises Gen. 17. so far as they were Evangelical did belong to Abrahams seed by faith onely nor doth the Apostle any where interpret that promise Gen. 17.7 as holding forth spiritual things in the external right and administration of it and the spiritual things assured therein are by the Apostle determined Rom. 9.8 to belong onely to the elect not to all Nor doth Rom. 9.4 say the promises pertained to all the Jewes nor to any in respect of external right and administration And though I deny not but that persons may be said to be outwardly in the covenant of grace in appearance to mâ—n when they make a profession of faith though not in reality yet I deny that God hath made the covenant or promise of grace to any other then the elect true believers nor appointed any way of sealing it to any other Nor is it true that baptism as a covenant-seal presupposeth a covenant-right or that the Jewes Acts 2.38 39. had any covenant or Church-right to baptism jus ad râ—m though not jus in re afore they were believers on Christ nor had they any right to baptism in that they were members of the Church of the Jewes nor was the commission of baptism first given by God to John Baptist in reference to that Church of the Jewes as a seal of their membership therein but of their owning Johns doctrine becoming his disciples and joyned into a School or Church distinct from the Pharasees and other Jewish Church-rulers though they adhered till after Christs death to the law of Moses and temple-service Nor is there any truth in it that Peter required of the Jewes repentance afore baptism Acts 2.38 because though they had covenant or Church-right thereto yet being adult members under offence and admonished thereof by Peter they might for their obstinacy against such an admonition notwithstanding Church or Covenant-right have been debarred that seal For 1. The Christian Church and the Jewish Church of which those Jewes were members were in their profession not onely distinct but also opposite therefore there was no Church-right from being members in the one to be members of the other 2. For their fact of which they were admonishde by Peter they were so far from being in danger of being cast out of the Jewish Church in which they were members that they were more sure of being cast out for repenting of their sin and being baptized into the Name of Christ John 9.22 3. Peter doth not act in his speech Acts 2. 38 â—9 as an Elder in the Jewish Church for he was none but as an Apostle of Christ nor was their fact objected to them as an offence to the Church of which â—â—ey were but confessed by themselves as an heavy burden that lay on their conscience nor was Peters advice given to remove a Church-censure for re-admission to a seal but to ease their consciences and to bring them to the faith of Christ and communion of that Church into which they had never been admitted But Master Cobbet against my first exception saith those Jewes were offensive members of that Jewish Church which was a true visible Church and not yet dischurched and divorced by the Lord they were then in the Church of the Gospel and so
come and that they and we have our right to all these promises upon the self same condition Answer Thess things are manifestly false for though godliness have the promise of this life and that which is to come 1 Tim. 4.8 yet the promises Levit. 26.6 c. are not made to every godly man that he shall ly down and none shall make him afraid that he shall chase his enemies c. but rather assurance is given that he shall be persecuted 2 Tim. 3.12 Mark 10.29 30. Nor have they promises upon the same condition for Exod. 34.24 it is promised that none should desire the Israelites Land while they did appear thrice in the year before the Lord but to us there is not that promise nor upon that condition But saith he earthly things indeed were to them promised more distinctly and fully heavenly things more generally and sparingly than they are now to us and on the contrary spiritual things are more fully and clearly promised to us than to them and earthly promises more generally and sparingly Answ. This is not all the difference for I have shewed that to us an earthly rest is not promised at all but the contrary assured to us to wit suffering persecution Mr. M. adds And that these temporal benefits which you mention viz. multiplying of Abrahams seed the bitth of Isaac and possession of Canaan were all of them administrations of the Covenant of grace they were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed both by them and us These things I not onely asserted â—ut proved in my Sermon If you mean no more than this that all these temporal blessings were promised and given as flowing from the promise of Christ and were subservient to it or were types and shadows of it you mean no more than what we all grant who yet deny any more mixture in the Covenant made with Abraham for the substance of it than there is in that made with us and that the difference lies onely in the manner of administration Answer I deny not but that the possession of Canaan birth of Isaac multiplying Abrahams seed were figures signs and types of spiritual things to be enjoyed by elect Jews and Gentiles according to the mystical hiddenâ—sense of the words nor do I deny that they were subservient to the promise of Christ whether it be to be said they flowed from the promise of Christ or tended to the fore-signifying of Christ to come the grace of the Gospel and the heavenly inheritance and rest is a doubt Surely they flowed from Gods special love to Israel above any other people Deut. 7.6 7 8. And I grant that Circumcision ratified spiritual blessings chiefly that is as the chief thing promised yet in the sense in which I think Gameron meant it Thesi 78. de triplici foedere primarily that is according to the first and manifest sense of the words it sealed earthly promises peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity and that Ciacumcision of infants was specially for that reason to wit the peculiar promises to Abrahams natural posterity nor do I see cause to mislike Grotius his speech Annot. in Luc. 1.59 Infantium autem circumcisio ostendebat foedus esse gentilium And this mixture of the Covenant with Abraham to wit that it contained not onely promises common to all believers but also promises so peculiar to Abrahams natural posterity that all of them were not according to the Law to be made good to any Gentile though a Proselyte circumcised namely the inheritance of the Land of Canaan of which none but the natural progeny of Israel were to be inheritours is so manifest that the denial of it I can hardly impute to any thing but dulness or meer pertinacy Yet why these promises so peculiar to them should be denied to be of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham I see no reason they being integral parts Christ it is true is the substance of the things promised as they were Types yet the things promised in respect of their natural being had a substance besides and in relation to the Covenant were as much the substance or substantial parts of it as the spiritual promises yea sith those spiritual promises if I may so speak did subsist in the expressions of temporal blessings it follows in my apprehension that if the promises of the spiritual blessings were of the substance of the Covenant then surely the promises of temporal blessings which those very promises did express and under the shadow of which they were made should be much more of the substance of the Covenant Nor do I conceive any grosness in it to imagine of God that he should in a Covenant of grace founded in Christ intend in the seal of it to ratifie temporal blessings when he intended to assure spiritual blessings under the covert of words in the first sense importing onely temporal As for the terming of the administration of the Covenant of grace it is neither according to Scripture nor is it very handsom sense specially according to Mr. Ms. doctrine who calls Circumcision the old administration of the Covenant and if it were an administration of the promises which were administrations of the Covenant of grace then Circumcision was an administration of an administration But Mr M. speaks to me thus I desire to know of you what Scripture ever made circumcision a seal of Canaan we have express Scripture that it sealed the righteousness of faith whereby he was justified but I no where reade that it â—ealed the Land of Canaan Answer To gratifie him I tell him that I read Circumcision called a token of the Covenant Gen. 17.11 which Covenant was the Covenant mentioned before in that chapter and in that v. 8. the promise of the Land of Canaan is made and Acts 7.8 Stephen calls it The Covenant of Circumcision which he shews not how it was otherwise fulfilled in that speech but by bringing them out of Egypt and placing them in Canaan in which he fulfilled his promise to Abraham vers 6 7 16. It is true the Apostle calls Abrahams Circumcision A seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised Rom 4.11 But I finde not this said of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams surely it cannot be said truly of any ones Circumcision but a believers As for what he saith That we have now carnal promises and therefore our covenant may be as well mixt as that with Abraham I answer it is true We have promise of the life that now is and that which is to come and so our Covenant is in a sort mixt of spiritual and temporal promises but these promises are common to all godly persons both Jews and Gentiles not proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity inheriting in which sense I called it a mixt Covenant Exercit. pag. 2. Sect. 1. I grant we have outward privileges and ordinances as Baptism and the Lords Supper and that many now are members of
ad dictum simpliciter is â—allacious As for my speech which he saith symbolizeth with Bellarmine if it be true it is not the worse for that nor did I blame Mr. M. for symbolizing with Arminius in a truth but for agreeing with him in that explication which doth undermine the true explication of Rom. 9.8 which the Contraremonstrants prove from the Text. If Bellarmine did by mystical sense mean the same which I did by the more inward sense of the Holy Ghost and by the Letter what I express by the outward face of the words I see not that either Chamier or Mr. Bl. have or can prove it false The sense in the outward face of the words I call that which a Linguist who knows what words signifie would conceive upon reading without any other revelation from the Holy Ghost But I cannot believe that any Linguist without other revelation than what the bare words hold forth would ever have understood these promises A father of many Nations have I made thee I will be a God to thee and thy seed Thus Gentiles as well as Jews shall believe in Christ I will justifie raise thee up and all that are my Elect or who believe as thou dost to eternal life I grant Chamiers conclusion In this Covenant here is a promise of Heaven and yet deny that the outward face of the covenant Gen. 17. is all Evangelical nor is there a word in Mr. Blakes that proves it Mr. Blake proceeds thus Lastly Mr. T. yet knows not how to bring any thing home were all granted to serve his interest And then sets down what he conceives to be my meaning which he thus opposeth First that orthodox Divines both ancient and modern have made Circumcision to be of the same signification and use as Baptism and till Anabaptists closed they had no Adversaries but Papists who to advance their opus operatum in the Sacraments of the New Testament will have them as far to exceed the Old as Heaven doth Earth and the substance doth the shadow and then cites a speech of Chamier Panst. Caâ—h tom 4. lib. 2. cap. 9. sect 58. and prosecutes his calumnies of my borrowing my weapons I use against infant-baptism from the Jesuits to all which I answer 1. That I grant that Circumcision and Baptism are in part of the same signification and use nor did I ever deny it but in as many and more things they differ which I have shewed Exercit. Sect. 2. Examen part 3. Sect. 9. in this part of the Review Sect. 11. and those disparities I prove out of Scripture and the best learned and approved Protestant Writers Nor do I agree with the Jesuits in holding Baptism to confer grace ex opâ—re operato nor do I undervalue the Covenant with Abraham and his seed as no gospel-Gospel-covenant nor do I deny Circumcision to have been the seal of a Gospel-promise As Mr. Blake doth calumniate me and to make odious doth faâ—sly and injuriously suggest I took from the Jesuits But this I confess I hold Exercit. Sect. 1. that there is not the same reason of Circumcision and Baptism in signing the Evangelical Covenant nor may there be an argument drawn from the administration of the one to the like manner of administring the other of both which speeches I have given an account in that place which I finde not yet invalidated and if they hold the analogy between infant-circumcision and infant-baptism is evacuated there being difference between the covenant made with Abraham and the new covenant though both be in some sort Evangelical and therefore the mixture of the covenant will serve my interest in this point 2. It is false which Mr. Blake saith That my conformity with the Jesuits about the difference between Circumcision and Baptism to maintain the opus operatum of the one to the disparagement of the other as if Baptism exceeded Circumcision as far as the substance the shadow did put me upon it to affirm that what all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists must be truth undeniable is no undeniable axiome for neither do I conform to Jesuits inâ— that point nor was such conformity any reason of that speech but the words of Mr. M. in his Sermon as the reading of the words of my Examen pag. 113. shew And I say still that speech is a truth and necessary to be avouched by all those who ascribe onely authentick authority to the holy Scripture Nor is it reasonable to require that I should shew any such errour as is maintained by all Protestant Divines against Papists For 1. it is not possible for me to shew what all Protestant Divines hold against Papists 2. Nor is it necessary to verifie my speech which avoucheth not any such errour in act but onely the possibility of it which is sufficiently made good by pâ—oving them not infallible And to the demand how Popery should be known if that be no Popery which all Protestant Divines defend against the Papists I answer 1. it may be counted Popery and yet perhaps a truth which all Protestant Divines oppose 2. What is Popery which we have engaged our selves to extirpate is better known in the ways I set down Ap. p. 133 134. Sect. 13. than in Mr. Blakes way For 1. it is not possible for any man no not the greatest Reader in Controversies to know what all Protestant Divines defend against Papists 2. If that be the Rule to know Popery by many things will not be taken for Popery which are there being many Tenents which are counted Popery which Protestants Divines and those of good note have not opposed but have granted many things favourably to them as not onely the Collections of Brerely and such like Papists but also the Treatises of the Cassandrian writers and late Episcopal Protestant do shew which yet I do not approve of I agree with Mr. Blake that there is less likelihood that the truth should be with the Papists than with the Protestants and yet there may be some truth which some Papists may discern which many Protestants do not It is the saying of Doctor Twisse Vind. Grat. lib. 1. part 2. sect 25. digress 8. num 3. But I would not that those things should be rejected of us because the Schoolmen hold them for neither do the Cretians fain all things Augustines judgment was esteemed better than the Pelagians as being the oracle of his time yet he is censured as the hard father of infants for maintaining their damnation if they died unbaptized Calvin was in high esteem as the great Light of the Protestant Churches who have many of them followed him in the point about usury yet the Popish and Prelatical Divines are generally counted by our most zealous Preachers more right in that point than the transmarine Calvinists It is a wicked calumny which Mr. Blake vents whe he saith of me that I 〈◊〉 in upon the party of these sons of Anak meaning the Jesuits Had he any other
de nudis signis as is â—leare in the Ecclesiasticall Stories of old and most arguings of Anabaptists Which shewes they fear Infants Baptim will not be maintained without this doctrine of giving by Baptism to the elect at least initiall seminall regerating grace reall or relative But Mr. Baxter thinks otherrwise that that doctrine will increase Anabaptism Leaving them to their severall fancies I proceed Mr. Calvin and wâ—th him many others take another course to avoyd extreams neither making Baptism a naked sign which is imputed to Zuinglius nor ascribing to it the giving of grace by the work wrought with the Papists nor holding such initiall seminall regeneration or seed of Faith at Baptism given at least to the elect as Lutherans and others which perhaps will be found as much as the Papists ascribe to it but ascribing to Baptism and the Lords Supper not onely signification but also obsignation and so making this the generall nature of Sacraments to be seals of the Covenant of grace which they say is made to infants of believers though they want not faith at or before Baptism and from this promise they desire a title to the baptism of Infants of believers as is shewed out of Calvin above But 1. there is much ambiguity in their determinations about the covenant of grace what it is and what it contains and in what sense it belongs â—o infants of believers as such and what believers infants it belongs â—o and how baptism seals it So that in their speeches there is much equivocation and frequent saying and unsaying as chiefly about the promise Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee which is one way expounded in their Commentaries on Rom. 9.7 8 and elsewhere as meant of saving graces and applied onely to the elect and true believers in their disputes against Arminius But elsewhere expounded of every Gentile visible professor of faith in Christ and his naturall seed as if thereby the outward privileges of visible Church membership and initiall seal were promised and applied to all infants of believers whether elect or not in their disputes against Anabaptists as may be perceived by this and other writings published by me 2. The objection still holds How can baptism seal to an infant Every seal is a sign though every sign be not a seal but baptism is no sign to an infant sith it signifies nothing to it at the time of baptism because the infant hath not understanding to perceive the use of it and when the infant comes to understanding there 's no print of baptism to represent anything to the person baptized some years before If the person know anything of it it is by report which is no visible sign but audible to the baptized 3. A a seal is an assuring sign to the eye of what is promised to the eare but baptism assures nothing to an infant without faith therefore it seals nothing without faith And thus in Mr Perkins his Exposition of the fifth principle of his Catechism Heretofore we were taught A Sacrament is a sign to represent a seal to confirm an instrument to convey Christ and all his benefits to them that do believe in him Faith therefore was a necessary prerequisite in the person to whom the Sacrament was a seal of the Covenant of grace which infants wanting it is no seal to them and consequently no Sacrament as Mr. Gataker argues in another case Discep de bapt inf vi effic pag. 192. â—f it be a seal of the essence of a Sacrament The main if not the onely Texts whence they â—etch this Doctrine of making the nature of Sacraments to be Seals of the covenant of grace are Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.7 10 11. In the former it is said Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised and in the other Circumcision is termed the Covenant and token of the Covenant Whence the seal of the Covenant of grace is either made the definition of a Sacrament in generall or at least the genus of it and in the writings of Paedobaptists â—â—â—ls of the Covenant and Sacraments are used as terms of the same signification Iâ— the Confession of faith of the Assembly chap. 27. art 1. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the Covenant of grace and they cite but two texts for it Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.7.10 Yea in the Ordinance of Parliament Octob. 20 1645. about Rules concerning examining persons to be admited to the Lords Supper this is one principle which every one who is admitted to the Lords Supper is required to give account of that Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ so that in effect it is made as one of the first Credenda or articles of faith necessary for all to know On the contrary I have seen a little book in English of one Mr. Jackson in which are nineteen arguments to prove circumcision no seal of the covenant of grace For my part as I express my self in my Examen pag. 117. I should not stâ—ck to yeild that the rites of the New Testament called Sacraments may be called seals of the covenant of grace being â—ightly expounded in this sense that they shâ—w forth Christs death and thereby to the true believer the benefits of the covenant of grace are assured yet considering how Writers make this the very Genus in the definition of them and of their nature and essence and thence inferre duties and draw arguments to determine cases of conscience about the use of Sacraments as they are called and make it a necessary point to be acknowledged by all I reject it and except against this use of that term for these reasons First Because this use of that term is not in or from the holy Scripture That term Seal of the covenant of grace is not expressly in the holy Scripture I suppose will not be denied if it be let it be shewed where Though the term Seal and the true Token of the Covenant be ascribed to circumcision Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.11 yet is not the term Seal of the Covenant of grace applied to any Sacrament no not to circumcision Nor is the term Seal of the righteousness of Faith Rom. 4.11 of the same sense with the term Seal of the covenant of grace For the Seale of the covenant of grace in the ordinary acception is as much as an assuring sign or mean of the grace of the covenant to be bestowed Rom. 4.11 it is said that Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a Seal of the righteousness of Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised and therefore it was rather a seal of certification of what he had than a prediction or promise what he should have Mr. Baxter against Mr. Blake pag. 104. saith truly That circumcision was the Seal of the righteousness of Faith even a justifying faith already in being Rom. 4.11 12. The
New England Elders in their Answer to the third and fourth of the nine positions pag. 65. say truly thus The scope of the Apostle in that place Rom. 4 11 is not to defâ—ne a Sacrament nor to shew what is the adequate subject of the Sacrament but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God not by works but by faith thus As Abraham the Father of the faitfull was justified before God so must his seed be that in all believers whether Iewes or Gentiles circumcised or uncircumcised for therefore Abraham received circumcision which belonged to the Iewes to confirm the righteousness which he had before even whilst he was uncircumcised that he might be the Father of both And to speak truth to conceive that circumcision there is made the seal of the covenant of grace that is that God would be the God of Abraham and his seed for the future sanctifying justifying saving him and them â—is indeed to evacuate the force of the Apostles argument which is that righteousness is not appropriated to the Lawes by the Law but common to the Gentiles with them by faith because Abrahams circumcision sealed to him the righteousness of faith which he had before he was circumcised Nor do I see that which Camier Paust Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 10. Sect. 47. saith doth prove that circumcision Rom. 4.11 is meant of a Seal of a promise because Gen. 17. in the institution it was termed a token of the covenant for the Apostle Rom. 4 11. mentions not what God appointed circumcision to be to every circumcised person but what peculiar use Abrahrms circumcision had to him and all believers though uncircumcised And though it is true that righteousness of faith supposeth a word of God or a promise or covenant of grace yet Ro 4.11 the citcumcision there mentioned is said to seal not a promise of something future but something past and already had many years before Gen. 15.6 But were it granted that ciâ—cumcision there sealed the promise to come to wit that part of the covenant Gen. 17.4 Thou shalt be a father of many Nations and that v 7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to bee a God unto thee and thy seed after thee or that Gen. 15.5 So shall thy seed be mentioned Rom. 4.17 18. and so did assure a future estate to others as well as an estate already obâ—ained to Abraham yet this is ascribed in that place to no ones circumcision but Abrahams For 1. The occasion and scope of the passage shew it is meant of Abrahams circumcision it being alleged to prove that Gentiles were to be justified by faith though uncircumcised because Abraham was justified by faith afore circumcision and his circumcision after did but seal not convey the righteousness of faith we had before 2. The expression He received standing in opposition to yet being uncircumcised shewes that the receiving of the seal of circumcision was in his own person 3. The end of receiving it shâ—wes it more plainly for it was That he might be the father of them that believe But this was the end onely of Abrahams personall circumcision Neither Ishmaels nor Isaacks nor any others personall circumcision were that Abraham might be the father of them that believe but onely Abrahams 4. The time exactly noted of his believing and imputation of rightâ—ousness to him distinguished from the time of his receiving circumcision shew plainly that it was the same person who had the one and the other and the receiving it not as a command to execute it upon others but as a sign and seal to himself and all believers whether circumcised or uncircumcised evidently shew it is spoken Rom 4.11 of Abrahams personall circumcision and of no others As for Gen. 17.10 11. it is true Circumcision is termed the Covenant and a token of the Covenant But it is not said of that promise onely v 7. nor of that promise in the Gospel sense and therefore it cannot there be proved to be a token or seal of the Covenant of grace but it followeth that Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17 7.10 are impertinently alledged by the Assembly to prove this proposition Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the Covenant of grace Yea the end of circumcision was conceived generally by the Jewes and so used to bind men to observe the Law of Moses for righteousness And thus they taught who are mentioned Acts 15.1 Except ye be circumcised after the manneâ— of Moses yee cannot be saved And v. 5. That it was needfull to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses Acts 21.20 21. Thou seest brother how many thousands of Jewes there are which believe and they are all zealous of the Law and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jewes which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses saying That they ought not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the customes and the Apostle Gal. 5.2 3 saith Behold I Paul say to you That if any of you be circumeised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie again to every man that is circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law So that circumcision in the ordinary use may seem to have been a seal of the Law rather than of the Gospel or covenant of grace and if your baptism be of the same nature with circumcision it is so far from being a rite of the Gospel that it rather binds us to observe the Law But fourthly were it granted that it was in the use of it according to the institutton a seal of the covenant of grace how doth it follow from thence that this is the nature of every Sacrament Whence will it be evinced that that is the Genus of every Sacrament which is not so much as once attributed to them The Passover is counted a Sacrament and we find that it signified the Passover over the Isralites houses and sparing their first born and that it typified Christ 1 Cor 5.7 But this doth not prove that it was a seal of the covenant of grace any more than Jonâ—hs being in the Whales belly which was a type of Christs buriall was a seal of the covenant of grace I grant we are said to be baptized into Christs death to be buried by baptism into death Rom 6 3 4 to be buried with him in Baptism and therein to be raised up through the faith of the operation of God who raised him from the dead Col. 2.12 and that they who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 And the Cup is called the new Testament in his blood 1 Cor. 12.25 And therefore I should yelld to call both thâ—se ordinances signes memorative of Christs death in the first place and by consequence seals of the New Testament and its benefitâ—s specially the Cup in the Lords Supper But
all the promises of it are Yea and Amen 3. Yet were it so this sealing is not to Infants who have no intelligence thereof and so no confirmation thereof by baptism 4. Nor doth this sealing any more pertain to the children of believers than unbelievers it is but of the truth of the covenant in it self not of any persons interest in it 5. This is as well sealed by the baptism of others yea by the baptism of any one deceased most of all by Christs baptism as by each persons own baptism 6. This sealing may be not onely to them that are baptized but to them that deny baptism yea to Infidels yea to Devils who may and do believe the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it to be Yea and Amen and have it sealed as well to them by the baptism of a person as to the baptized and better than to an infant But perhaps Mr M. helps the matter in the second or third But as to the second saith he which is interesse meum or the receivers interest in that spirituall part of the covenant that is sealed to no receiver absolutely but conditionally in this particular all Sacraments are but Signa conditionalia conditionall seals sealing the spirituall part of the covenant to the receivers upon condition that they perform the spirituall part of the covenant Thus our Divines use to answer the Papists thus Dr. Ames answers to Bellarmine when Bellarmine disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are Seals alledges then they are falsly applied oftentimes he answers to Bellarmin Sacraments are conditionall Seals and therefore not Seals to us but upon condition Answer The spirituall condition is faith so Ames Bell. enerv tom 3. l. 1. â— 1. q. 4. th 11. Sacramenta non sunt testimonia completa absoluta nisi credentibus Sacraments are not compleat and absolute testimonies but to the believing Now if the Sacraments seal onely conditionally they seal onely this proposition that he that believeth shall be justified saved c. But this is all one with sealing the truth of the covenant in it self nor doth this seal the baptized persons interest in the covenant any more than the unbaptizeds no more to the infants of believers than of unbelievers not at all to any till they believe and so to no infants ordinarily and if then the baptizing of them must be derived from this interest and sealing of the covenant either none are to be baptized till they do believe or all alike are to be baptized Besides if Sacraments be but conditionall signes or testimonies incompleat and conditionall till persons believe then they are but conditionall incompleat Sacraments till a person believes sith to be a sign seal is of the nature of a Sacrament and if so then infants have not a compleat Sacrament or absolute but an incompleat and conditionall baptism and consequently though the baptizer begin to baptize the infants yet he cannot say he doth baptize them but must wait till they be believers and then he may say he baptizeth them and gives them a compleat Sacrament and is bound to baptize them when they come to years whom he did wash in infancy or else he mocks them which is the mind of Christ indeed that he that believeth should be baptized and no other Mark 16.16 Besides whether there be any conditionall sealing may be a uqestion Mr. Baxter Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 77. pag. 140. speaks of it as a strange thing useless and vain But this I shall leave till I examine Mr. Baxters exceptions against me about the condirional covenant and sealing onely I take notice of his words Sect. 79. pag. 141 A conditional seal is not a seal till the condition be performed and infers that if baptism be a conditionall seal it is no seal and consequently no sacrament to an infant untill he doth perform the condition Mr M. adds Now for the third thing the obligation which is put upon the receiver a bond or tie for him to perform who is admitted to receive the Sacrament this third I say is also absolute All circumcised and baptized persons did or do stand absolutely ingaged to perform the conditions required on their part and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision obliged to keep the Law that is the legall and typicall administration of the covenant which was then in force and infants among the rest are bound to this though they had no understanding of the covenant or that administration of the Covenant when this seal was administred to them Answer It is true God required that his covenant should be kept which is expressed to be That every man child among the Hebrewes should be circumcised Gen 17.9 10. but this was the duty of the parents not of the infants who were to be circumcised not to circumcise And it is true That all circumcised persons were by the eircumcision obliged to keep the Law And if circumcision sealed this its sealing of this was the sealing of a command not a promise of God for they are not obliged to keep Gods promise that is the work of God alone but his precept so that this sealing is not of the covenant of grace at all yea by this sealing obliging to keep the whole Law the covenant of works is sealed rather than the covenant of grace as the Apostles speech shews Gal. 5 2 3 4 And this sealing belongs to all infants and elder persons for all are tied to perform the condition of the covenant that is to repent and believe And if hence be derived a title to baptism either all are to be baptized because all are obliged to the condition of repentance and faith or none are to be baptized but penitent believing persons To speak the plain truth the right use of baptism is first to seal to God testifying our repentance and faith by it afore God seals to us by it any benefit of the covenant of grace To conclude Mr. M. hath not yet acquitted himself from putting a seal to a blank which Mr Calvin counts a profanation of the Sacrament when he baptizeth an infant who hath neither a promise of spiritual grace from God nor doth perform the condition of the covenant nor understand by baptism any thing of the covenant nor professe any accptance of the covenant nor is or can be known to have any part in the covenant of grace nor is there indeed any thing but vanity in this discourse of Mr. M. or the Paedobaptists doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant of grace and the interest of believers infants therein SECT XXXII The exceptions in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. against Mr Ms speeches about the covenant and conditionall sealing are made good against Mr. M. and Mr. Blake BUt that we may the better discern the vanity of Paedobaptists conceits about the seal and covenant I shall enquire a little more into this point in which I find much jangling
of the covenant of grace belongs for to none particularly besides the elect belongs the promise of justification adoption and glorification Therefore the conditionall promise is not it which is sealed by the Sacraments 4. Saiâ—h Mr. B. If according to Mr T. his judgement that absolute promise must be fulfilled to a man before he be capable of receiving the Sacraments which are seals of the covenant of grace then is it not that absolute promise which is the covenant of grace sealed to by the Sacraments But according to Mr. T. his judgment that absolute promise must be fulfilled to a man before he be capable of a right receiving the Sacraments which are seals of the covenant of grace Therefore it is not that absolute promise which is the covenant so sealed to The Antecedent is evident â—f you consider 1. That it is the promise of the first renewing grace which we speak of for all after grace is promised conditionally 2. That Mr. T. pleadeth that believers onely are disciples and such disciples onely must be baptized 3. That faith is a part of this first grace absâ—lutely promised as is commonly judged The giving of a new soft heart is the giving the seed of all graces and so of faith The consequence is evident because the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed is not given before the first sealing But the mercy promised in that absolute promise is according to Mr. T. and in part the truth given before the first sealing of the Covenant of grace therefore c. God doth not promise a Seal to a man that hath a new heart to give him a new heart or to a man that is a believer that he will give him to be a believer except we speak of the continuance or increase of faith and newnesse which is not the thing in question Answer The consequence of this argument may be denied and the reason of it also For according to the Apostle Abraham received the sign of Circumcision a seal of the righteousnesse of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised Rom 4 11. If then the sealing of the covenant of grace by baptism be the same with the sealing of the righteousness of faith by circumcision Rom. 4.11 which is the common tenent of many Paedobaptists who from this Text draw a definition of Sacraments though falsly as is shewed before then the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed is given before the first sealing Yea if the conditionall covenant be sealed to believers now justification which is the mercy promised in the covenant which is sealed is given before the first sealing For a man is justified actually as soon as ever he believes as I am confident Mr. B will grant Buâ— he is not regularly baptized till after his believing therefore a believer is justified and consequently the mercy promised in the first covenant which is sealed is given before the first sealing That all after grace is promised conditionally is said by Mr. B. without proof and how inconsistent it is with the promises of perseverance how much it undermines the doctrine of the Saints perseverance how it disables the godly to plead the promises and takes away their comforts when they are sensible of their fâ—iâ—ings if the after graces of recoveâ—y after falâ—s and perseverance to the end be promised condiâ—ionally I need noâ— shew it here â—iâ—h Dr. Owen hath done it amply in his Treatise of Perseverace ch 4 5 c. Dr. Kendall in his sancti sanciti ch 3. and wouâ—d be here a digressiâ—n 5. Saith Mr. B. The benefits of the Covenant of grace which are sealed by the Sacraments are by those of age to be received by faith But the benefits of the absolute promise of the first grace are not to be received by faith Therefore this is not the covenant of grace so sealed The Major is evident Mr. T. saith onely believers must be baptized as disciples The Minor is proved before Faith is part of the thing promised and we do not by faith receive our first faith or our power to believe Answer It is not I onely but Mr. B. himself who speaks in effect what I say Plain Script prâ—of c. pag. 299 â—00 of the first edition when he saith That in the instiâ—ution and every example of baptism through all the Bible the first grace is prerequisite as a condition is undeniable as might be manifest by a recitall of the particular Texts could we stay so long upon it John required a profession of repentance in those he baptized Jesus first made them Disciples and then by his Apostles baptized them John 4.1 The solemn institution of it as a standing ordinance to the Church which tells us fully the end is in Matth 21.19 20. Go and disciple me all Nations baptizing them c. Now for the aged a disciple and a believer are all one Mark 16 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved Acts 2.38 Repent and be bapâ—ized every one c. 41 They that gladly received his word were baptized Acts 8.12 13. The Samaritans believed and were baptized both men and women Simon himself believed and was baptized Acts 8.36 37. If thou believest with all thy heart thou maist be baptized and he answered I believe c. Paul believed upon Ananias instruction and then was baptâ—zed Acts 10.47 48. 16.15 33. 18.8 19.4 5 c. You see it is still required that at all age do first believe and then be baptized I acknowledge he puts in these words for the aged at all age by which he would prevent the inference from his own words against infants baptism intimating that there are an institution and examples of infant baptism elsewhere But this is but a vain caution when his own proposition is That in the institution every example of baptism through all the Bible the first grace to wit Faith is prerequisite as a condition is undeniable So that which he intimates in his caution is contradictory to himself and a palpable falshood there being no other institution or example of baptism to any but disciples or believers in all the Bible and therefore baptism of infants who are not believers or disciples is a manifest abuse deviation from Christ and his Apostles appointment and practice by Mr. B. his own words and consequently will-worship and profanation of that ordinance As for the present objection I deny the Major if it be universall though Mr. B. saith it is evident but proves it not nor doth any concession prove iâ— For though I grant persons are to be believers afore baptism yet it doth not follow that the benefits of the covenant of grace which is sealed by the Sacraments are to be receivâ—d by faâ—th and not before It is Mr. B. his mistake that the promise to which there is sealing must be fulfilled afâ—er and not before The contrary is manifest in Abrahams circumcision in baptism as I shewed before and in
should be if an initial seal either of Circumcision or Baptism if either of these then this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed hath this sense I will bring it to passe that thou thy seed proselytes believers of the Gentiles and their seed even infants shall be circumcised or baptized If any can make any other sense of the words I shall be his debtor And if this be the sense then the promise is made a preâ—iction of infant-infant-Circumcision and Baptism which whether it be not a ridiculous exposition I leave it to any considerate man to judge The Apostle Rom 9.6 7 8. where he expounds this very Scripture understands being a God of saving grace according to election and by Abrahams seed the elect onely Rom. 4 11 12.13 16 justifying of believers by faith Gal. 3.16.29 inheritance and blessing to believers throâ—gh Christ Jesus Our Lord Christ Luke 20 36 37 38. Of being the children of God and of the resurrection Mr. M. his self in his Sermon pag. 7. makes these words a promise of salvation to the infants of believers dying in their infancy pag. 10. he saith The substance of the Covenant on Godâ— part was to be Abrahams God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion to be an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life And this he distinguisheth from the administration of the Covenant Yea in his Defence of his Sermon pag. 98. he conceives the right allegation of an expression of Cameron That Circumcision did seale primarily the temporall promise sanctification secondarily to have an untoward look as being incâ—ngruous to a covenant of grace in Christ to ratifie temporall blessings which they may have that shall have no portion in Christ. Hath it not then a more untoward look to make this pretended visible privilege to proselytes children though but visibly owning God and his covenanâ— of having an initiall seal Circumcision and Baptism communicated to them meant by the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Gen. 17.7 Much more to call this the Copy of Abraham the Father of believers Not that I deny temporall promises in that Covenant which I have proved to be mixt but I allege these passages onely to show the inconsistency of Mr. M. his speeches Besiâ—es the promise were not true so expounded for if this were the sense I will be the God of the posterity of proselytes owning God and his Covenant that they shall be accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents then God doth promise that visible privilege to them for the words are a promise of an event not a declaration of a right and show what God would do not what they might claim which in many he performs not there being may of the seed of proselytes that never had the privilege and many of the children of Christian gentile believers who never had the visible privilege of being accounted to belong to Gods Kingdom whereas the word of God must be so expounded that it do not fall as about this very text the Apostle resolves Rom. 9.6 Mr. M. Defence part 3. pag. 127. saith It was not a personall privilege to Abraham no nor to Abraham Isaac and Jacob to have their posterity taken into covenant by vertue of that promise I will be the God of thee and thy seed and p. 129. This I add to make it more clear that that promise Gen. 17. I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise which from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the naturall seed of believers Answer 1. What Mr. M. means by Taking into covenant is somewhat doubtfull to me by reason of his using the term Covenant sometimes for the outward covenant or administration sometimes for the promise of God and confounding these terms taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant being covenanters entring into covenant sometimes meaning these terms of the promise of grace sometimes of the initiall seal termed by him the Covenant and taking into covenant being in covenant belonging to the covenant sometimes being understood as they should always be in order to Gods act who alone takes into covenant and puts a man into covenant with himself but frequently though abusively by another mans act aâ— the administrators act of Circumcision and Baptism very seldom of being in covenant or belonging to the covenant by the circumcised or baptized persons own act of promise though in respect of it onely in right speech a person is said to be a Covenantâ—â— or to enter into covenant Of which thing I have often though in vain complained it causing obscurity which a man who is a teacher of others should avoid But concerning the promise Gen. 17 7. I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee in their generations 1. I deny that Abrahams naturall posterity were taken into covenant that is circumcised as I conceive he means by vertue of that promise as I have often proved and is in effect confessed by Mr. M. Defence pag 182. when he saith The formall reason of their being circumcised was the command of God 2. I deny that under the term Thee is meant any other than Abrahams individual person 3. I deny that under the term Thy Seed is ever â—eant in Scripture the naturall seed of proselytes or Christian believing Gentiles 4. I deny that by the promise I wil be the God of thy seed can be concluded that which Mr M. asserts That thâ—s promise Gen. 17.7 I will be the God of thee and of thy seed is a Gospel promise wâ—iâ—h from age to age holds forth some benefits even to the natural seed of believer or that this was Abrahams Copy That upon his and the proselytes visibly owning God and his Covenant their posterity should have this visible privilege that they should be accounted to belong visibly to Gods Kingdom and his Houshold with their parents Nor doth Mr. M. prove this sense of that promise Gen 17.7 either from the words or their coherence or by comparing it with any other Scripture as yeelding that exposition of it elswhere but saith something pag. 127 128. of his Defence to which though I have answered it sufficiently in my Postscript to Mr. Blake Sest 6. pag. 119. yet I repeat it with addition because much of pleading of Paedobaptists is hence First saith he though Abraham was the Father of the faithful and so in some sense the root as you elsewhere call him yet the Covenant was made with him for his faiths sake and believers are his children and heires and pertake of those priviledges and promises which were made to him and therefore look as Abrahams faith justified him before God and gave him interest in the spiritual graces of the Covenant and none but himself yer it was so beneficial
it is of Divine institution or the form of a particular Church eiâ—her in respâ—ct of its truâ—h or purity much less that it is a condition of interest in the covenant of grace as if the promises thereof were mâ—de under that condition But I conceive this speech of Mr. C. heâ—e together wiâ—h â—hat other excepted against mâ— by me in the first part of this Review pag. 92 are very dangerous I go on Again saith Mr. C. That Covenant of grace is considered either in it self or its administration to which purpose Circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace Gen. 17 11 12 13 partly too because it was the covenant of grace in the administration of it Ier. 13.11 Isai. 24. Zach. â—1 10 hath reference to the covenant of grace both as invested with the Church covenant and in respect of Church administration thereof Answer The administration of the covenant of grace is to me no way intelligible but thus that by it is meant the administring the promise it self which I know not how it should not be done but by making or writing or some other way representing or recording it or the things promised in the covenant of grace to wit justification c. which may be done either by Divine authority power conferring or bestowing and this none can do but the eternal Father Son and Spirit or by way of signification revelation or assurance of them so I confess the preaching of the Gospel and in some sense the Sacraments as they are called may be termed Church-administrations of the covenant of grace But this seems not to be Mr. C. his meaning for he saith Circumcision is called the Covenant partly because it was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace Gen. 17.11 12 13. partly too because it was the covenant of grace in the administration of it Which words are an inâ—pt tautology if to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it be not somewhat beyond being a sign and a seal of it and sith circumcision is said to be both circumcision must not onely sign and seal the covenant of grace but must be the administration of it which how it should do but by conferring the grace of it I know not If it be that way it must do it either ex opere operato or ex opere operantis if this later way then how do infants receive grace by it who believe not nor do any other act pre-required if the former it is the same with the tenent of Popish Doctors And for the text Gen 17.11 12 13. his own words pag. 43. refuâ—e him when he sâ—iâ—h Every one that haâ—h read Catecheticall doctrine will say that when in one verse it 's said of Circumcision in their flesh that it was his covenant in their flesh It is an usuâ—ll Metonymy in speaking of Sacraments to call the outword sacramenntall sign and seal by the name of the thing signified and scaled pag 44. Circumcision is bâ—t a branch of the covenant or condition of the covenant on their part As for the texâ— Jer. 13.11 there 's not a word of ciâ—cumcision in 〈◊〉 onely it is said that God had caused to cleave to him the whole house of Israel as the girdle cleavâ—th to the â—yns of a man but to refer this to circumcision is frivolous God had by his Covenant Providence and actings for them in wonderfull maâ—er made them to cleave to hiâ— That â—hey might be unto him for a people as iâ— follows in the vâ—rse In the other text Isai. 24 5 it is said the Iews had broken the everlasting covenant which if it be undâ—rstood of the covenant of grace then may it be brâ—ken aâ—d persons may faâ—l from grace if of circumcision as Mr. C. seems to undâ—rstand it then it is no more but they had uncircumcised â—hemselves which were both faâ—se for at that time and after even unto this day â—he Iewes keep the ordinance of circumcisioon very strictly â—nd frivolâ—s as if this hâ—d been the great maâ—ter for which the earth mourned did fade away languished was utterly emptied and spoiled But â—the covenant here is meant of the covenant of â—he Law a 〈…〉 which was everlasting that is to continue as long as their pâ—â—iâ—y stood Exod 24.7 8. as Exâ—n 27 21 12.24 28.43 2 Chron. 6.2.2 7.16 the word for ever is used for a long time or the continuance of the Iewish Sâ—ate So Jer 11 3 4 Jer 31 32 they are accused to break the covenant at mâ—unâ— Sinai by disobedience chiefly by idolatry and therefore neither of the Tâ—xâ—s yeild any thing to prove circumcision to be the covenant of grace in the administration of it That Gods breaking of his Covenant Zach 11.10 hath no reference to the Covenant of grace either as invested wiâ—â— Church-covenant or Church-administration thereof is shewed above Sect 25 in the right administration of it The distinction he makes of being in the Covenant intentionally and 〈◊〉 I allow nor do I deny the distinction oâ— being in Covenant internally and savingly and onely externally in respect of men though I find not Ishmael any where said to be in the Covenant and the promises Rom. 9.4 are meant of the peculiar promises to the nation of Israel by the Covenants are meant the tables of the Covenant as Beza in his Annot. on that place however all there said is meant of the Israelites only as is shewed before Sect. 29. and therefore this place makes nothing for Christian Gentile professors being externally in the Covenant of grace as Mr. C. imagines Nor do I know any Text in the Scripture wherein that phrase is used of being in Covenant or having the Covenant belong to them externally only The distinction of being in Covenant externally in their own or their parents right hath no proof in the new Testament however it have in the old The seed of Abraham by proportion is a new invented sort of Abrahams seed no where Proselytes of old not true believers in their Generations and were visible inchurched beleivers in their Generations scil parents children together are terms Abrahams seed in Scriptue That Deut. 29 14. notes the sorts of persons not the individuats cannot be true for him that is here and him that is not here note individual persons distinguished according to their present and future existence That Gen. 17 7. is meant of a Church seed indefinite or by proportion is said not proved by Mr. C. and denied by me I pass on to his Conclusions Sect. 2. I grant the first conclusion according to the explication I give in my Exercit. Pag. 2. in my Examen part 3. Sect. 2. that the Covenant Gen. 17 7 was a Covenant â—f grace and the same in nature with that Covenant of grace nâ—w hâ—ld â—orth to us But Mr. C. hath a further meaning to wit that the Covenant as it is a Covenant of
according to men children of the promise as Mr C speaks Heb 4 1 4 proves not that the promise of grace and glory may be to one as his legacy or portion externally and according to men of the saving good whereof it is possible one may fall short For though there be mention of a promise left yet not of a promise left to any that come short of it unless by being left be meant propounded or tendered onely Antipaedobaptists do grant they admit false brethren to baptism and the Lords Supper called by Mr Cobbet seals of Church and Covenant fellowship but it is not in them to admit them into the fellowship of covenant meaning the covenant of grace for that is Gods peculiar We admit them to baptism on this ground not because to us they are in covenant we suspend any judgement about their interest in the covenant as being out of our cognizance and no Rule for us to admit or keep back from baptism but because we know them to be professors of faith in Christ. If by Blanks be meant such as to whom the promise of the covenant of grace is not made and by Seals Baptism and the Lords Supper we think we do ordinarily put seals to a blank nor do we make scruple thereof or think it true that the seal must follow the covenant or that Gen 17.9 10 11 13. Acts 2 38 39. 1 Cor 11 25 prove it That it is not taught Gen 17.7 10 11 13 Ast 28 39 is shewed in the fore part of this Review Sect 5 and in this part Sect 5 8 13 20 21 22 23 37 and elswhere 1 Cor. 11 25 the cup in the Lords Supper is called the new Testament in Christs blood but that all or onely those who are in the covenant of grace must have the the cup is not proved thence and the falshood of it is shewed above often We do not say when we admitted persons to baptism we judged them to be in the covenant of grace else we had not admitted them but we knew they professed faith in Christ and so were Disciples of Christ and thereupon admitted them according to our Rule Matth. 28 19 leaving it to the Lord whether they be in the covenant of Grace or no we being not directed to enquire whether they were in the covenant of grace but whether believers and disciples by profession I for my part agree not to it that either according to Scripture or the best Protestants any are said to be children of the promise or that the covenant of Evangelicall grace in the N. T. confirmed by Christs blood is made to them or belongs to them besides the elect Such Doctrine gives great advantage to the Arminians undermines perseverance in grace and the Polemicall Doctrine of our choice Divines as I shewed Exâ—men part 3. Sect. 4. and elswhere in this part of the Review Mr. Norton Mr C. his Colleague commended by Mr Cotton with Mr Cobbet as a prime writer in the New English Churches Resp. ad syl quaest Apollon p. 30. saith Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi objectum faederis Ecclesiastici sunt tum electi tum reprobi My own Tertulliâ—n in his book de Anima chap. 21 22 when he urgeth that Texâ— 1 Cor 7 14 for a peculiar cleanness of believers children by privilege of seed means not the federall holiness Mr C. teacheth but holiness by reason of the freedom from that unholiness in their procreation which the Infidels children had from the many gross idolatrous superstitions by which they were defiled and as it were dedâ—cated to the Divell as I shew in my Apologie Sect 16 page 85. Paraeus Peter Martyr Bucer Melancthon Mr. Philpot are all Neotericks Cyprian Gregory Nazianzen Jerom Austin though they did plead for Paedobaptism from the Argument of Circumcision yet did not mâ—inâ—ain Infants covenant-estate as Mr. C. but a necessity of baptism to Infants ready to die because of the Text The soul that is not circumcised shall be cut off from his people Gen 17 1â— Instances whereof in Augustine and others are many cited by Chamier Pausir Tom 4 l 3 c. 3 Sect 39 40 41. And they thought the Infant dying baptized was infallibly saved whether believers child or not As for others they denied their entring into the kingdom of heaven as I shew you in my Examen part 1. Sect 7 8 9 10. I have often considered Zech 11 10 and I conceive the sense as Mr C. makes it of the covenant of grace in respect at least of the externall administration thereof amongst them as verse 9 and their externall right in that his covevenant to be very vain For if it be meant of the covenant of grace then it is as much as to say That I might not write my Lawes in their heart forgive their sins c. as I â—romised them Jer. 31.33 and then God should break his promise theâ—e should be falling from the covenant of grace c. If the sense be of the covenant of grace in respect of externall administration thereof amongst them and their externall right in that his covenanâ— then it is as if he had said That I might take away Circumcision the Passover and the rest of the Temple-service and the peoples right to them For what is the externall administration of the covenant of grace but the seals as they call them and the rest of the service of the Sanctuary Now this neither agrees to the phrase for Circumcision is never called Gods covenant with all the people and to break circumcision what is it but either to draw up the fore-skin and to forbid circumcision If this be referred to the time of Christs coming this had not been a prediction of an evill to them but of a benefit to be eased of that yoak verse 9 mentions not externall administration of the covenant of grace or externall right there o. But whenever it was accomplished whether at the siege of Jerusalem or at some other time it was the taking away of some who might be their protectors whereby they were exposed to destruction which whether they were the Maccabees or some others may be doubted However it is so frigid an interpretation to interpert it as Mr C. doth that methinks he should be ashamed to blot paper with it The Covenant ch 10. whether it were that Gen. 17. or that Exod. 19. or 24. or Deut. 29. â—t is certain it is meant not of the Covenant of grace common to all believers Gentiles or Jews but of the covenant which he made with the Israelitish nation which he brake by taking away their Leaders whether Governors or Teachers Maccabees or some other and so exposing them to ruin by the Grecian or Roman Lords or some other Psal. 44.17 Dan. 11.30 31 32 33. to deal falsly in Gods Covenant and to forsake the holy Covenant and to do wickedly against the Covenant do not intimate that Mr. C. would infer that there are some said
That the Apostles reasoning Rom. 9.4 6. compared mentions any such Church-seed of Abraham or takes them in as such but onely the elect Mr C. doth falsly charge his adversaries doctrine as denying any interest at all to any believers infants in the covenant I have often granted it to the elect but to none as believers infants Mr Baillee charged me with this thing to which I answered in my Letter to him Sect. 1. our doctrine is as comfortable as theirs when they speak truth It is no Gospel but a dream to affirm what Mr. C. doth of Abrahams fancied Church-seed though it be Gospel to say God will be a God to Abrahams spirituall seed elect and true believers SECT XL. Animadversions on Sect. 5. of the same Chapter shewing that Mr. C. his supposed visible interest in Gods covenant is not the rule in baptizing SEct. 5 Mr. C. sets down this conclusion That the Church in dispensing an enjoyned initiatory seal of the covenant of grace looketh unto visibility of interest in the covenant to guide her in the application thereof Nor is the saving interest of persons in view which is her rule by which she is therin to proceed Concerning which I say that I grant it if the terms be altered into plainer expressions as thus The baptizer in the admitting a person to baptism is not bound to stay baptism till he know a person hath saving interest in Gods covenant of grace but it is sufficient if he be a visible disciple or believer to admit him to baptism And that M. C. may cease his wonder he who confessed that it 's not to be denied that God would havâ— infants of believers in some sense to be counted his to belong to his Church and Family not to the Divels as true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis c. doth not oppose his fourth Conclusion reduced to the plain terms I have set it down 〈◊〉 Yet there are sundry things in which I oppose him 1. That he makes it the Churches business to dispense the initiatory seale as he calls it of the covenant of grace which I â—ake to belong to him that is sent or used to make disciples by preaching the Gospel not to the Church 2. That he maketh the rule of baptizing to be visible interest in the covenant which according to the institution is visible discipleship or faith 3. That he takes that person to have visible interest in the covenant of grace so as to have right therby to baptism who neither by extraordinary revelation from God nor by any act of his own but barely by his parents profession hath a pretended visible interest in the covenant But let 's examine what he saith because he seems to be the selected man in New England to plead for Infant-baptism Whether John the Baptist did admit to baptism those which he knew would prove false and frothy is doubtfull Mr Norton Mr Cs. Colleague Resp. ad Appollon c. Prop 1. seems to hold the negative and cites to that purpose Paraus and Aretius I agree with Mr. C. in his position That personâ— may be baptiâ—ed upon visible profession without knowledge of the saving state of the party yet I do not think Ananias and Sapphira or Simon Magus were known hypoâ—â—ites when â—hey were bâ—ptized nor do I think the Texts Mr C. allegeth Acts 21.20 c or 22 20 c. or 23 12 13 prove that any of those baptized Acts 2.41 or 4.1 2.3 4. were of the number of them that opposed Paul or proved false If Christ did say to Iudas that his body was broken or given fâ—r him and his blood shed it will be hard to avoid thence the proof of universall redemption I think it the safest and most likely tenent that Judas went out afore the Lords Supper For the Passover it was not administred to Judas by Christ nor do I know what warrant we have to make it a seal of the covenant or to belong to a Minister of the seals as they speak It was a rite instituted to remember the delivery out of Egypt ond appointed to be used by each family without any other administration than the providing slaying dressing and bringing to the Table If the Prist did any thing in it it was at the Temple not at the Table each person was to take himself according to his eating Abraeham and Isaac did circumcise Ishmael Esau rightly according to Gods command which is the rule in administring ordinances not covenant-inâ—erest But that they did circumcise as Prophets or Priests at that time to the Church in their families it is said without proof The business of circumcising was not the work of a person as a Prophet or Priest to his family but did belong to the parent or some other in his stead though no Prophet nor Priest Chamier Paustr cath tom 4 l 5 c. 14. sect 9 10 saith We read of no certain Minister of Circumcision either in the institution or elswhere so that there 's no obstacle but that Zipporah and the woman in the second of Maccabees c. 6. might circumcise So there is nothing read by which the immolation of the Paschal Lamb was wont to be done in each family is prohibited though no Priests were used Ishmael and Esau and Iudas were not visibly interessed in the covenant being discovered by God and Christ to be such as had no interest in it That a Minister cannot of himself admit to baptism or reject from it regularly but by and with the Churches consent is dictated without proof I grant that if particular persons saving interest in Gods covenant and promise of grace were the Rule to baptize by administrators could not observe the rule in faith but doubtingly But that such visible interest in the Covenant as Mr C. means is therefore the rule to baptize by follows not What or where A. R. suggests to the contrary I find not nor doth Mr C. tell us What he adds I say visibility of the parties interest in the covenant I say not meer visibility of faith and repentance is quite besides the Scripture which never appoints persons to be baptized because of their visible interest in the covenant but their visible faith and repentance He tells us The initiatory seal is not primarily and properly the seal of mens faith and repentance or obedience but of Gods covenant rather the seal is to the covenant even Abrahams circumcision was not primarily a seal to his faith of righteousness but to the righteousness of faith exhibited and offered in the covenant yea to the covenant it self or promise which he had believed unto righteousness Hence the covenant of grace is called the righteousness of faith Rom. 10.6 7 8. The righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise v. 8. and the word of faith Hence albeit Abraham must walk before God who is now about to enlarge the covenant to his as well as to make it to him in a Church-reference Gen. 17.1 c. yet the
he proves nor to shew how he proves out of the text he allegeth but leaves his reader to fish out his meaning as he can from scattered passages However I shall view his dictates He denies that the Jewes had only a Covenant of grace among them which was made to some choice ones among them And yet the Apostle directly teacheth that the promise I will be a God to thee and thy seed as a promise of saving grace was not made to all Israel but the elect only Rom. 9.6 7 8. And clear it is that the Covenant made with the body of the Israelites at mount Sinai was the Covenant of workes as is plain from Rom. 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 7 9. Gal. 3.12 and 4.24 25. Heb. 8 9 10 11. c. and 12.18 19 21. It is false that he hath any where proved that the external Ecclesiastical right to circumcision came from the circumcised persons interest in the Covenant of grace invested with church-Church-covenant Neither did God appoint all them to receive the visible seal thereof meaning Circumcision for he did not appoint the females or males under eight dayes old to be circumcised though in the Covenant as well as the infant male of eight dayes old He bids us see Gen. 17.7 8 9 10 11 12 13. and 26.3 4 5. and 28.12 13 14. But I can see none of his dictates in those texts I find there that God made a covenant with Abraham after renewed it to Isaac and Jacob assuring to their inheriting posterity the inheritance of Canaan the multiplying of them c. that God injoyned circumcision to them for a memorial and assurance of that covenant This covenant as containing the promise of Canaan c. to the natural postority of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is expressed to be by reason of Abrahams obedience Gen. 26.5 circumcision is required Gen. 17. and Exod. 19. Levit. 26. obedience is required to the laws given by Moses They that term the Covenant Exo. 19. a covenant of works speak sutable to the Apostle Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 yet I deny not but in Covert expressions Gen. 17. and elswere God promised Christ to the elect whether Jews or Gentiles and blessing that is righteousness and eternal life by faith in him Gal. 3.16 c. which Abraham and all the ancient Saints expressed by faith Iohn 8.56 and elswhere Now it is not true that those covenant Fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob recieved the covenant Evaneglical in referrence to their natural children nor in respect of justification before God and external life had a contrary covenant of life and death grace and workes made with them For though the Jews succeding were under the whole law of Moses because of transgressions yet not so as to have life by it Gal. 3.17 18 19 21. noâ— is it any absurdity to say that the legal justitiaries who rested in the law were at one and the same time externally under the blessing of God in respect of their outward prosperity in Canaan and yet internally under the curse of God Gal. 3.10 as seeking righteousness before God by their observing the Law It is no where said that any other than Abraham is the root or first fruits to his seed Rom 11.16 nor they termed his seed lump branches any other way than either naturally or spiritually that is by natural generation or by following his faith by vertue of election Rom. 11 16. doth not say Abraham was the root as recieving the covenant for the branches but as propagating the branches Nor need we say that he either received a covenant oâ— works alone in referrence to them all elected or that he recieved the Covenant of grace with Ecclesiastical respect to them all The plain doctrine of the Scripture is set down above Mr. C's dictates are meer phantasms without Scripture The substance of the Covenanâ— is a novel expression and ambiguous I deny not the covenant Gen. 17. to be evangelical yet I concieve it not purely such but as I say in my Exercit. pag. 2. mixt that is containing political and Evangelical promises I deny not but it was the jews covenant-right to have the Tabernacle of God or their ordinances as their privilege yea and his presence therein until the Messiah came yet so as that when thay set up Idols the glory of God departed from them Ezek. 11.22 23. They had also Gods oracles with them deliverance from Egypt Christ to be with them in the wilderness nor do I deny these to have bin by vertue of Christs mediation yet so far as these were national mercies they were proper to the Jews What ever be meant by the Covenant the promise Rom 9 4. they do not agree to Gentile believers And though I say they were by vertue of Christs mediation yet I concieve the mediation of Christ was directly for the elect only for others only obliquely by consequent and by accident by reason of the Cohabitation of them on earth I deny not that filling the Temple with smoake Rev. 15.8 allusively to that which was 1 Kings 8.10 11. Isai. 6.1 2 3 4. might restifie the presence of God in the Churches after Christs ascension in a way of mercy to his people and for their sakes in a way of justice against his and their enemies I neither do nor need say that Canaan was all which God promised the Jews I grant it was promised to them as an everlasting possession Gen. 17.8 But the wrod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Gr translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 everlasting notes freequently but a duration of some age or ages as 2 Chron. 2.4 c. I deny not but the Patriarchs looked futher than Canaan Heb. 11.9 10. I deny not that the promise of Canaan was in some sense ratified in Christ and all other temporal blessings to the elect now 1 Cor. 3.21 22 23. that Christ is said to drive out their enemies Exod. 23.20 21. and that the land they possessed was called Immanuelâ— land Esâ—i 8.8 that sundry were excluded from thence for unbelief Heb. 3 laâ—â— compared with ch 4 2. though if it be not warily explained Moses and Aaron should be guilty of the Gospel sin of unbelief If God promised to be a God to them and as one branch thereof instanceth in giving them Canaan Gen. 17 7 8. then the promise of Canaan is a branch of the promise I wil be a God to them If the Proselyted strangers were to have Abrahams Covenant sealed to them and theirs by circumcision yet had no lots in Canâ—an then persons were to be circumcised to whom the promise belonged not I grant that Christ was mediator of the Covenant with Abraham so far as it contains evangelical promises but deny that it was held out to all the Jews by the sacrafices For though the typical sacrâ—fices in respect of purifâ—ing the flesh did purge the whole Congregation yet none were purâ—ed by Christs blood but the elect The high Preist bare the
Evangelical grace which is the onely Covenant the people of God are now under and which alone is the question now Who are in this Covenant or to whom is this Covenant or the promiseâ— of it made by God I assert as before Sect. 33. That it is made onely to the Elect And M. Bl. pag. 191. yeelds that many Orthodox writers seemingly restrain the Covenant oneâ—y to the Elect and regenerate But he addes some distinctions whereby he thinks what they say may be salveâ— from self contradictions 1. Of a two fold Covenant 1 a single 2 a double to perform both parts to save upon repentance and to give a new heart But he doth not shew that there is any Evangelical Covenant now which is not double nor that either the double or single is made with any but the elect 2. Of an inward Covenant which â—e grants to be made onely to the elect and an outward which he saith is a Covenant properly so called and which Scripture holds out for the Covenant of God with his people in which all professed Christians so called are which puts them into a capacity of Sacraments and their children of the initial Sacrament But what this outward Covenant is or where it is to be found I know not what I find about it â—s shewed to be vain Sect. 25. and Mr. Bs. refutation of it in his Apology against Mr. Bl. pag. 66 67 10â— saves me any further labour to shew it to be a figment 3. Of being in Covenant according to title to the Covenant or to the benefits of the Covenant and saith the right of Covenant belongs to all that externally makâ— profession the benefit onely to the elect But I know no right of Covenant but what is by Gods promise and surely all to whom God promiseth have the benefit of the Covenant and to imagine that the Covenant of grace is to any to whom the grace following the Covenant is not is to make Gods Covenant and word to fall which the Apostle abhorred Rom. 9.6 and to make the Covenant of grace as liable to complaint â—s the first Covenant contrary to Heb. 8 6 7 8 9 10 4. Of entring into Covenant which all visible professors do and stedfastness in it which do onely the elect and faithfull Psal. 78 3â— But this text speaks not of the Covenant of Evangelical grace as if any were entred into it who were not stedfast in it but of the Covenant of the Law with the Jewish people which is not the Covenant in which the Gentiles are under the Gospel And to Mr. Bls. confused talk I again say 1. That the Covenant of Evangelical grace is made by God onely to the Elect and that in respect of Gods promise none but they are in the Covenant nor is there to any right to Sacraments or capacity of an initial Seal barely by that being in Covenant 2. That profession of Faith may cause a man to be taken to be in the Covenant by the guides and brethren of the visible Church in the face of which he may have title to Sacraments but his infant children have no title thereby to Baptism 3. That from the beginning none but the elect had the Covenant of grace made to them 4. That from the beginning it is not proved the children with their parents to have been no not in the imaginary outward Covenant But letâ—s vâ—ew what Mr. Bl. saith 1. He alledgeth Matth. 28.19 and takes it as freely conâ—est that a Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God and tels us that the Covenant Matth. 28.19 is committed to man to work and to judge of it being wrought to put a seal for ratification and confirmation of it which cannot be restrained to the elect for they onely are known to God an elect person and a Church member should be termini convertibiles the seal of the Spirit and the seal of the Sacrament are in equal latitude to baptize an unregenerate person is to put a seal to a blank as high an abuse of that sacred Ordinance as the circumcision of the Sichemites Gen. 34 24. Answ. It is not confest by me that a Disciâ—le of Christ that is every Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God meaning it in respect of Gods Covenant or promise of Evangelical grace made to him nor do I know of any Covenant Matth. 28.19 committed to man to work and to judge of it being wrought and to put a seal for ratification and confirmation though I grant every Disciple professing Christ is in some sense in Covenant with God that is by his act of profession doth engage himself to follow Christ and so in that respect is in Covenant with God and that Matth. 28.19 the Apostles are injoyned to make Disciples by preaching the Gospel and baptize them which may be done without working a Covenant between God and man which phrase doth imply that a Minister can work God into Covenant which is in my apprehension an absurd conceit or judging of a Covenant being wrought or putting to a seal for confirmation of it And for the absurdities Mr. Bl. infers from the denial of restraining the Covenant to the elect I count the first not to follow upon my tenet sith I conceive a man may be a Church-member who is not in the Covenant of grace and for the second I count it no absurdity according to my explicatâ—on before given Sect. 34 35. though I do withal declare that the seal of the Sacrament is a term I reject for the reasons given before Sect. 31. And for the third I count it no abuse to put a seal to a blank that is to baptize a person who is not in the Covenant of Evangelical grace As for the 2d argument Mr. Bl. would draw from Matth. 28.19 to prove that the Covenant of God is onely a Covenant professed because Matth. 28 19. a whole Nation is in Gods ordinary way of administration in a capacity to attain and enter into it it is answered in the 2d Part of this Review sect 9. where it is shewed that Matth. â—8 19 there is no such command as to make Disciples and bapâ—ize the whole of a Nation even the infants Mr. Bl. adds a 2d text Matth 20.16 22.14 whence he argues thus If there be a call from God in the times of the N. T. in a far greater latitude then the grace of election that of many called few onely are elected then the Covenant in the N.T. times is not to be restrained to the elect and regenerate but contains all that professedly accept the terms of the Covenant and visibly appear a people of God This is evident seeing the call is into Covenant all at the feast were called ones all the hired Labourers were Covenant-servants To conceive men to be called of God and not to be in Covenant with God is a full contradiction The call hath its terminus a quo and its terminus ad quem a state which upon
to the terms of that Covenant their God There is not a place where God calls them by the name of his people which are almost endless but there we have this confirmed tâ—at that people were the Lords by vertue of this grant made to Abraham and his seed Answ. This last speech might be granted and what else Mr. Bl. infers from the Text yet he attains not his end unless he prove that by vertue of that Covenant all the Israelits by natural discent weâ—e Godâ— regenerate jâ—stified people for the thing he should prove against me is that Gen. 17.7 God promiseth to be a God in respect of Gospel benefits to all Abrahams natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. Yet I conceive there are places wherein the Israeliâ—es were termed Gods by vertue of the Covenant of the Law Ezek. 16 8. 20.5 c. without mentioning the Covenant Gen. 17.7 which the Apostle conceives differently of Gal. 3.16 17. And the speeâ—hes Exod. 20.2 Deut. 5.6 Exod. 5.1 Deut. 14.1 2. though spoken of the body of Israel yet may and are to be understood at least in some senses of them not of every individual Surely he was not God Evangelically to those that believed not nor were they his people nor legally so as to afford them that protection and temâ—oral blessings which are promised in the Laâ— Deut. 28. c. to Ahab Achan Korah and such like But in the Evangelical sense the denomination is from the better part the people he fore knew as the Apostle himself expounds it Rom. 11.2 5. and in respect of political blessings according to the Covenant of the Law to the obedient to the Law as of long life to dutifull children safety whiâ—e they kept the Solemn Feasts Exod. 20.12 24.24 Nor doth Amos 3.1 2. which he saith is full to his purpose say that God was a God to that whole family which he brought out of Aegypt by vertue of the Covenant Gen. 17.7 much less to every one of them Evangelically nor doth he say he had known them â—ll Evangelically but had known them onely that is had distinguished them from other people by giving them his Laws c. which makes nothing to prove according to Gen. 17.7 God took every descendent from Jacob into Covenant in respect of Gospel benefiâ—s In the 4th place saith he I argue from the practise of the people of God making this Covenant of God entred with Abraham and his seed a Plea to obtain mercy from God for all Israel the worst of Israâ—l in their lowest state and condition Deut. 9.26 27. If this Divinity had been thâ—n known Moses might have been sent away with this answer That he spake for dogs and not for children not for Israel but for Aliens and strangers to the Common-wealth of Israel But as this anâ— the like requests of the people of God were made in faith so they prevailed with God Moses there urgeth they are thy people and thine ineritance v. 39. as doth the Church Isa. 64.9 and Moses petition takes as the History shews Exod. 32.14 Yea when God vouchsafes mercy to his people thus in Covenant Levit. 26.42 it is upon this account of the Covenant And appearing for the deliverance of Israel out of their hard and pressing bondage he saith to Moseâ— Exod. 3.6 and that to stay up his faith in confidence of deliverance â—nsw Thaâ— which Mr. Bl. should prove is That Covenant exprest in those words Gen. 17.7 in their fullest latitude as they are spoken in the largest comprehension which according to Scripture they can be taken are entred with all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob. And in his answer to my Letter ch 10. pag. 55 56. he urgeth Exod. 32.13 Deut. 29.27 Levit 26.42 Exod. 3.6 to prove that Gen 17.7 was a promise of grace and mercy to Jacobs posterity such as of which Circumcision was a seal Rom. 4.11 which he saith is no other then a Covenant of grace and saith Circumcision did seal that Covenant to be the God of believers and their seed Gen 17.7 10. But not one of the petitions or speeches alledged do prove either the former or this last assertion The petition of Moses Exod. 32.13 was upon occasion of the making of the golden Calf Gods speech to Moses concerning the consuming of them for it and making Moses a great Nation Moses to divert God from this thing alledgeth 1. That they were his people which he brought out of Aegypt with great power and a mighty hand and if he should consume them the Aegyptians would reproach him as intending mischief to them when he brought them out of Aegypt Where it is true God calls the body of them his people But this must be understood if Evangelically in respect of the better part onely if Legally either de jure because they ought to have been his people being delivered from Aegypt and having engaged themselves Exod. 19.8 to obey God or de facto because he had done so great things for them and thereby owned them in respect of his actings for them above other people 2. He presseth God with his Oath to Abraham Isaac and Jacob. But the Oath he mentions is concerning the multiplying the seed of Abraham Isaac and Jacob as the stars of heaven and giving the land of Canaan to them and that they shall inherit it for ever not a word of being God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical blessings nor a word tending to shew the extent of thâ— promise Gen. 17.7 in respect of gospel grace The same answer I give to his allegation of Deut. 9.26 27 28 29. And to Mr. Bls. flirt I answer this Divinity was then known to God and God might have sent away Moses with this answer That he spake for some who were dogs or reprobates and not children of God according to the election of grace which is the Apostles Divinity Rom. 9.6 7 8. 1 Cor. 10.5 Heb. 3.10 11 16 17 18 19. and that they were strangers from the Coâ—monwealth of Israel that is of the Israel of God Gal 6.16 And tâ—is is also the Apostles Divinity Rom. 9.6 and therefore I count this no absurâ—ity But I grant they even the worst of them were not dogs but children and of the Commonwealth of Israel political in respect of their outward state and in that respect holy and different from other people To the other I answer it is true Moses prayed in faith and was heard but there is no mention in the places alledged of his praying for spiritual Evangelical grace for every particular Israelite but for the preventing an utter destruction of them Nor doth he at all express any such faith whereby he believed God had promised to be a God to all the natural issue of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob in respect of Evangelical benefits but that God would not destroy them in which respect he was heard And in like manner
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
seed we have it all in Christ and what we have in Christ we have it all as Abrahams seed and that we are baptized into Christ that is our initiation into Christ and what ever we have as Abrahams seed is sealed unto us in Baptism By which it is evident that as Circumcision was to them so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Answ. If this were granted yet Mr. Cs. purpose were not obtained that the application of the seal to infants were justified by the command Gen. 17.9 10 11 12 13 14. for the reasons before given But because I conceive these assertions contain errours such as do mislead Paeâ—obaptists I shall examine Mr. Cs. allegations and together with them Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his third Conclusion and what I find material in other of my Antagonists about the point of Baptisms succeeding Circumcision Two assertions are laid down here by Mr. C. 1. That Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision 2. That it is the very same for substance to us as circumcision was to Jews before Christ. Neither of which are true or proved by any thing brought by Mr. C. or any other though this be the chief thing they alledge for infant Baptism and Mr. Church p. 50. out of Dr. Whitaker tels us all the Anabaptists will not be able to resist this argument from circumcision Let 's try the strength of it The latter position seems to be this That as circumcision was to the Jews so Baptism now to us is the token and seal of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed But this is not all one as to be the very same for substance To be the very same for substance is an expression that is scarce capable of good sense neither Baptism nor Circumcision in proper acception being substances or having substance except as the subject of them as all accidents have As substance is put for essence so it cannot be said they are the same for substance sith cutting is one thing washing another and other Paedobaptists usually term them different administrations Circumâ—ision the old Baptism the new I grant Circumcision was the token of the Covenant made with Abraham and his seed Gen. 17. but that it was a seal of that Covenant in the sense usually meant by Paedobaptists or that any ones Circumcision was a seal but Abrahams much less that every ones Circumcision was a seal of the Covenant of grace to him and his seed is more then I find in Scripture and how often I have proved it false may be seen in many of my writings specially the 3d. part of this Review But that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant made with Abraham and his seed is not true For 1. Baptism seals not at all the promise of the land of Canaan Gen. 17.8 nor any other of the promises made to the natural seed of Abraham 2. Nor doth it seal the spiritual promises of the comming of Christ the calling of the Gentiles as they were made to Abraham and by Circumcision assured to be accomplished For then Baptism as Circumcision was should be a shadow and type of Christ to come and should cease as it did 3. The Evangelical Covenant or the promise oâ— righâ—eousness or eternal life by faith granted to be in the latent sense comprized in that Covenant I find no where in Scripture said to be sealed by Circumcision but rather that circumcision did bind persons to the keeping of the Law for righteousness Gal. 5.2 3. nor by baptism but by consequent The Scripture rather makes it a seal if it must be so called of our promise to God then of Gods promise to us Nor is there any thing Gal. 3.27.29 to prove either of Mr. Cs. conclusions that Baptism now is the seal of the Covenant made to Abraham and his seed or that it is now in the room of Circumcision For neither is it said that what wee have as Abrahams seed is sealed to us in Baptism wee are said indeed to put on Christ by Baptism but that whether the putting on be meant of spiritual union or outward profession it is ascribed to faith v. â—6 and our Baptism rather is made our seal to Christ then Gods to us nor is there any thing spoken v. 29. of any seed of Abraham but by faith so our Baptism cannot seal that Covenant which was made to Abrahams natural seed which was the use of Circumcision and therefore that Baptism is the seal of that Covenant or in the room of Circumcision is not proved thence But let 's view what is further said for them or either of them That our Baptism succeeds in the room place and use of Circumcicision is the common speech of Paedobaptists against it 1. I argued in my Examen that Baptism was a concomitant to circumcision it was among the Jew long afore Christ came and it was by Divine appointment from the Baptism of John till Christs death now that which succeeds comes after is not concurrent To this Mr. M. replied 1. by concession and thence would gather an argument for infant Baptism which is enervated in the 2d part of this Review sect 24. 2. Saith he A Lord Major elect succeeds the old though the old continue after his election for a time Defence p. 171. But this is not true a Lord Major elect doth not succed till hee bee sworn in the interim he is no Lord Major in being but onely in possibility and probability which may never bee A successour hath no place while the predecessour is present Jewel Defence of the Apol. part 2. c. 3. div 5. 2. I argued that in no good sense can Baptism be said to bee in the room and place of circumcision For neither in proper acception have either room or place nor taking room and place for the subjects circumcising and ciâ—cumcised baptizing and baptized is it true parents though private persons might circumcise not so in baptism women were to be baptized not so in circumcision These things are answered by Mr. M. either with censures of me which are but vain this argâ—ing being necessary to clear truth or by reference to what he had said before which is also fully refuted in the third part of this Review sect 18. I further said If by room and place be meant the society into which the circumcised and baptised were to be initiated it is not true For Baptism initiated into the Christian circumcision into the Jewish church To this Mr. M. If you mean onely the several administrations the Church of the Jewes being Christs Church under one administration the Christian Church the same Church of Christ under another administration you speak truth but not to the purpose my conclusion never said Circumcision and Baptism do initiate into the same administration of the Covenant but if you mean that the Church of the Jews and wee are not one and the
commanded and observed as that which was a priviledge and duty belonging to the Covenant and they used it as being in Covenant the objection is wholly taken off To which I reply 1. The Covenant of grace might be in some sense and the Church state of Abrahams house in some respect that is to bee a sign of it might be the end why God appointed Circumcision to Abrahams house but motive that is impulsive cause I see not how the Covenant of grace and the Church state can be termed there being nothing but his own will according to the counsel of which he worketh all things Ephes. 1.11 that can be rightly termed a motive to him to command it 2. But be it in the sense I allow it termed motive or end and a duty belonging to the Covenant as a sign of it and the persons who used it as Abraham Isaac and Jacob used it as being in Covenant yet neither is it true that all that used it were in the Covenant of grace nor was it appointed as a duty to be used by them to all and they onely that were in the Covenant of grace nor did God by the use of it seal signifie assure or confer an estate in the Covenant of grace to every person whom hee appointed to bee circumcised and therefore no part of the objection is taken off that Circumcision was not the seal of the Covenant of grace to all circumcised persons but was appointed to persons not under the Covenant of grace and denied to persons that were and consequently Mr. Ms. proposition not true All that were in the Covenant were to bee sealed When Mr. M. said persons were bound to conform to the manner of administration and this manner of administration he made to bee temporal blessings and punishmenst I took it he meant they should conform to them He tels me p. 183. That though I confidently asserted heretofore that Ishmael and Esau and others were circumcised for some temporal respects that Circumcision sealed the temporal or political promises but yet in saying they received Circumcision neither in relation to outward things onely nor at all either as temporal blessings or types but because God commanded I do as good as deny it sith if they were circumcised with respect to noâ—hing but the command it sealed nothing it was no seal at all To which I reply I find not that I asserted any where that Ishmael and Esau were circumcised for some temporal respects and though I alledged Cameron saying that it sealed earthly promises yet I never said it sealed them to Ishmael and Esau Nor do I count it any absurdity to say it sealed nothing to them or it was no seal at all to them And I conceive that Baptism which is no seal of such earthly promises nor can be a seal of spiritual and saving grace to every natural child of a believer of which he will not assert p. 116. of his Defence there is a promise made to them when it is administred to reprobates is no seal of the Covenant of grace to them nor any seal at all and that he must as well as I do if he will speak congruously to his own doctrine say that such persons are to bee baptized by reason of Gods command and no other Yet I do not say the command of Circumcision was not in reference to the Covenant of grace as Mr. M. intimates but this I say though God commanded Circumcision that he might signifie Christ to come and Evangelical grace by him yet neither the circumciser nor the circumcised did circumcise or were to be circumcised because of the persons interest in the Covenant of grace as the proper and adequate reason of the duâ—y of Circumcision but because of Gods command and yet I nothing doubt but that in the use of it they and others that were neither circumcisers nor circumcised as e gr women were by faith to look on the Covenant of grace through these administrations that is to expect Christ to come and blessing by him which speeches are very easily consistent with my own words and Scripture doctrine though Mr. M. did not understand it When Mr. M. alledged that Circumcision could be no seal of Canaan to Proselites and I answered that yet the Covenant to Abraham had promises of temporal blessings and that some were to be circumcised who had no part in the Covenant of grace he tels me 1. That he was proving that Circumcision was no seal of the land of Canaan which I grant if he mean it to some that were circumcised yet if he mean it to none it is false 2. He grants temporal blessings belong to the Covenant of grace according to that 1 Tim. 4.8 But neither this nor any other Text proves that the promises of a setled abode in a fruitful land with peace prosperity and outward greatness and dominion therein is promised to a Christian believer now as it was to Abraham and Israel after the flesh Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. but the promise of this life is upon the loss of outward things of a recompense in this life by receiving more yet with persecution Mark 10.30 which can bee understood of no other then spiritual comforts which may bee termed temporal blessings distinct from the everlasting life which in the world to come they shall have 3. It was not his drift to prove that all that were circumcised had part in the spiritual graces of the Covenant but that they had a visible membership and right to bee reputed as belonging to the Church But this is not that whiâ—h hee was to prove that they were in the Covenant of grace Lastly when I excepted agaiâ—st his speech that Ishmael was really taken into the Covenant of grace and Esau till by their Apostaâ—e they discovenanted themselves 1. That hee opposed the Apostle Rom. 9.7 8. Gal 4.28 29. Gen. 17.19 20. Heb. 11.9 To this he replâ—es not 2. That by this speech he asserts falling from grace this he denies because hee meant by their taking into the Covenant of grace not being under the spiritual grace of the Covenant but the outward administration But 1. this is but non-sense and delusory For the outward administration is not the Covenant of grace Circumcision is not the Covenant of grace nor visible profession nor indeed could he mean it without trifling and mocking his reader when he argued Infants of Believers are in the Covenant of grace therefore are to bee sealed with Baptism or Circumcision For infants of believers make no visible profession and if his argument were they were under the outward administration that it to be Circumcised or Baptized and therefore they were to be sealed that is to be Circumcised or Baptized is mere trifling and delusory of the reader who expects from his words a proof that Gods promise of righteousness and eternal life by Christ which is and nothing else the Covenant of grace is made to every infant child of a believer 2.
If this were Mr. Ms. meaning Ishmael and Esau did not discovenant themselves for they did uncircumcise themselves but shewed that they regarded not the blessing of Isaac But saith Mr. M. I have no doubt but that all indifferent Readers well enough understand what I meant by being taken into the Covenant of grace even such a taking in as when the Gentiles were taken in instead of the Jews who were broken off they were under the outward administration visible professours had an external calling which is Gods act though a common one To which I reply 1. If they were taken into the Covenant of grace as the ingraffed Gentiles they were elect and true believers if Esau and Ishmael fell from that state of the Covenant of grace Arminian Apostasie is asserted 2. Neither the outward administration of Circumcision to Ishmael and Esau nor their visible profession whatever it were was Gods act which Mr. M. denies not taking into the Covenant of grace to be therefore by neither of these can they with good sense be said to be taken really into the Covenant of grace 3. What external call which should be Gods act distinct from the outward administration and visible profession mentioned from which Ishmael and Esau fell I understand not 4. What ever external calling it be which he means and terms Gods act though a common one sure I am Mr. M. hath not shewed nor can shew that it is a real taking into the Covenant of grace which I said truly nor hath Mr. M. disproved or gain-said it is Gods act either of election or promise or some act executing either of these and the objection still stands good persons were to bee circumcised who were in the Covenant of grace Ishmael was appointed to be circumcised though it were declared Gods Covenant did not belong to him and therefore the reason of Circumcising persons was not the Covenant of grace but onely the will and command of God to have it so SECT LXXXIV The enlargement of our priviledges proves not Infant Baptism as Mr. M. in his 5th conclusion would have it MR. Ms. 5th Conclusion was The priviledges of Believers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of grace are many wayes inlarged made more honourable and comfortable then ever they were in the time of the Jews administration For examining of which I set down something about priviledges which Mr. M. grants and saith what 's all this to the purpose I reply I told him it was to uncover the ambiguity of his speeches in which all the strength of his conclusion lay To what I said that if he meant his conclusion of priviledges of the substance of the Covenant of grace it is to be denied Mr. M. confessed they were the sameboth to Jews and Gentiles but in respect of the administration I granted it hee answers 1. if this were granted it hurts not him it 's sufficient if the administration be now more comfortable to Believers and their children To which I reply that this grant enervates the argument to which this conclusion tends For if the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belonging to the substance of it be not enlarged but the same in substance to Jews and Gentiles then no priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged for all the priviledges of the Covenant of grace belong to the substance of it and to true believers or elect onely the visible membership and initial seal contended for were no priviledges of the Covenant of grace nor such as all believers could claim for their children they were personal priviledges to the Church of the Jews and belonging to that administration as Mr. Ms. phrase is or as I would speak to that peculiar national Church state which God vouchsafed that people out of special ends and respect to that people of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came and consequently by denying those priviledges we deny no priviledges of the Covenant of grace to believers for their children nor ascribe less grace to them then the Jews had And if the administration be now more comfortable to believers and their children it being in that Circumcision and the yoke of the Law are taken away it follows it is more comfortable to us that no such thing as Circumcision was is put on our children Mr. M. and Paedobaptists do grosly mistake as if Circumcision did belong to Jewes and their Children because of their interest in the Covenant of grace which neither is nor ever will be proved 2ly Saith Mr. M. If there be no more honourableness in those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant how comes it to pass that in your answers to those several texts which I and others bring to prove the enlargement of priviledges under this last administration you interpret them of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it Answ. In those answers I do not so interpret those texts of those priviledges which belong to the substance of the Covenant or the spiritual part of it as more honourable then the priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace or spiritual part of it now then to believers afore Christ but say that the promises of the new Covenant which is the Covenant of grace are better then the promises of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which was the Covenant of works Thirdly saith Mr M. Seeing that under this last administration these priviledges are communicated not onely with more clearness but in greater abundance I wonder you should say they are no more honourable and comfortable now then they were then is not abundance of grace more honourable and comfortable then a little grace Answ. It is but yet not priviledges belonging to the substance of the Covenant of grace For this clearness and abundance comes not from the substance of the Covenant of grace but to use his phrase from the administration in respect of which I granted they are many wayes enlarged and made more honourable But then saith Mr. M. This will serve our turn well enough for this was a priviledge belonging to their administration that their infants were under it as well as themselves yeild that for ours and the controversie is ended Answ. The yeilding that the priviledges of believers under the N. T. are enlarged more honourable and more comfortable in respect of the administration will not serve Mr. Ms. turn except it be yeilded of this particular that the infants of Christian believers are visible Christian Churchmembers and to be entred by Baptism as well as the Hebrew infants of and into the Church of Israel by Circumcision which would indeed end the controversie if yeilded but was not so by me who granted priviledges of believers now more enlarged in respect of the administration because the preaching of the Gospel which is that whereby the Covenant of grace is administred is enlarged to Gentiles as well as Jewes and more honourable
because preached by Christ himself and more comfortable because in plain words without shadows Mr. M. adds To have nothing in lieu of the administrations then as they were shadowes of the substance which is Christ is very right But to say it is our priviledge to have nothing in lieu of them as they were external Ordinances to apply Christ is to say it is our priviledge to have no Ordinances to apply Christ to us and thereby to make us compleat in him which were a most absurd thing to affirm Answ. Those external Ordinances applied Christ to them no otherwise then as shadows of the substance which is Christ nor doth Mr. M. in his Sermon p. 10 11. express their administrations of the Covenant of grace otherwise then as figures signs types and sacraments of spiritual things so that if we have nothing in lieu of them as they were shadows but Christ we have nothing in lieu of them as external Ordinances to apply Christ to us nor did they make us compleat in Christ nor is it absurd to affirm that no external Ordinances now do But saith Mr. M. Circumcision was indeed a part of that administration and obliged them to the rest of that manner of administration as Baptism doth now to ours but did it not also belong to the substance Answ. No. Was it not a seal of the righteousness of faith of Circumcision of heart c. Answ. Abrahams was not every ones Circumcision Doth not the seal belong to the thing sealed the conveyance and seal annexed to it are no part of the purchased inheritance but do they not belong to it Answ. They do but not as of the substance of the thing sealed or the inheritance purchased or the Covenant whereby it is promised but as the sign whereby the futurity of it is confirmed Now surely he should use non sense who should â—erm the sign or seal the substance of the Covenant or thing promised being neither essential nor integral parts of them but onely adjuncts without which they may be or not be entirely To my saying That 't is so far from being a priviledge to our children to have them baptized to have Baptism succeed in the stead of Circumcision that it is a benefit to want it God not appointing it I answer saith Mr. M. then belike our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are so far from being enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism that it had been a priviledge to have wanted Baptism if God had not appointed it and by as good a reason at least you might have said that Circumcision was so far from being a privilegde to the Jews and their children that it had been a benefit for them to have wanted it if God had not commanded it Sure that is a strange kind of priviledge of which I may truly say that it had been a greater be to them who have it to have wanted it if the Donor had not commanded it Answ. Mr. M. by clipping my words hath misrepresented my speech he hath left out that Circumcision was a priviledge belonging not to the substance of the Covenant but to the administration which then was a priviledge to the Jews in comparison of the heathens but a burthen in comparison of us which was in that it signified Christ to come the obligation of the law for which reasons I judged it a great priviledge to us and our children that they have neither it nor any other thing in the place and uâ—e of it but Christ manifested in the flesh because if we had any thing in the use of it Christ must be expected to come in the flesh and Jesus denied to be the Christ and we debtors to keep the whole law And then I determined absolutely that the want of infant Baptism is no loss to us and our children not a loss in respect of duty God having not appointed it nor of priviledge God making no promise of grace to be confirmed by it to the infants of believers which last words being left out by Mr. M. the reason of my words is omitted and my speech misrepresented but thus set down Mr. Ms. exceptions appear but cavils For he supposeth our priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism but I know not any priviledges of the Covenant of grace but effectual calling justification adoption sanctification glorification and if there be any other termed saving graces or which accompany salvation and to say these are enlarged by enjoying the Sacrament of Baptism especially when administred to infants is as much as to say it confers grace ex opere operato And I grant for us to have wanted Baptism had been a priviledge God not appointing it nor promising any thing upon the use of it nor declaring his acceptance of it which is the case of infant Baptism Sure I know none but would think it a burthen to be baptized or be covered with water though but for a moment were it not God commanded it and accepted of it as a service to him And the like is true of Circumcision the want of which being so painfull was a benefit but for the command and promise of God signified by it Such actions as are no way priviledges but sins without Gods precept and promise it is better to want them then have them or act them such is infant Baptism and if it be in the place and use of Circumcision it is a heavy burthen no benefit now but a yoke of bondage I said Mr. M. was to prove either that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant of grace and he answers That Circumcision though a part of their administration did yet belong to the substance not as a part of it but as a means of applying it Which speech how frivolous it is is shewed before sect 25. p. 165 166. and in this section Or that the want of Circumcision or some Ordinance in the place and use of it is a loss of priviledge of the Covenant of grace to us and our children To this he saith And I have also proved that though it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration yet it is a priviledge to have somewhat succeed it as a seal of the Covenant in as much as a Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal Answ. 1. If it be a priviledge to have nothing succeed Circumcision as it bound to that manner of administration then it is a priviledge to have nothing succeed it in its use which confirms my before speech carped at by M. M. 2. How vain the talk of Paedobaptists is about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace is shewed before sect 31. 3. A Covenant with a seal is a greater benefit then a Covenant without a seal when there is more assurance and better estate thereby procured but if as good assurance and estate be by a
Covenant without a seal it is no greater benefit to have a seal then to have a Covenant without it 4. There is a seal of the Covenant of grace which succeeds Circumcision as the substance the shadow and that is Christs Cirumcision Col. 2.11 and his bloudshedding Mat. 26.28 Heb. 9.15 c. besides the seal of Gods spirit But saith Mr. M. the thing I was to prove was that our priviledges are enlarged not extenuated which appears partly in that we have freedome in what was burdensome to them in their manner of administration which he meant of Circumcision by his alledging Act. 15.10 and thereby it is manifest that it is false which he said before that Circumcision did belong to the substance of the Covenant as a means of applying it For that speech doth imply that the Covenant of grace could not be applied without Circumcision for that which is of the substance of a thing what way it is of the substance of it is necessary to the being of that of which it is of the substance otherwise it were a common accident not of the substance of it But without Circumcision the Covenant of grace might be applied yea according to Mr. M. it is and may be better applied for otherwise our priviledges were not enlarged in being freed from it Partly saith Mr. M. because our Covenant is established upon better promises Heb. 8.6 To this I answered the Covenant which had not so good promises was the Covenant at Mount Sinai v. 9. which was not the Covenant of grace for then it should have the best promises there being no better promises then are in the Covenant of grace nor could it be broken as that was nor occasion finding fâ—ult as that did but it must needs be the Covenant of works as the Scripture doth plainly deliver Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10 12 4.24 Heb. 12.18 c. and for this I alledged some of Mr. Ms. own words in his Sermon p. 10. That the Law was added not as a part of Abrahams Covenant that in that giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise To this Mr. M. returns an answer bemoaning me as running into a needless and erroneous digression that he said indeed in his sermon that the moral Law was added 430 years after the Covenant was made with Abraham not as a part of that Covenant but as a Schoolmaster to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadows of rites and sacrifices c. But to say that this Covenant mentioned Heb. 8. was the Covenant of works is a most erroneous doctrine look into the Text and you shall find that the Covenant which is there mentioned which God finds fault with and calls the first Covenant in opposition to this better Covenant had Ordinances of Divine worship had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle Priests and High Priests Sacrifices and other rites belonging to the administration of it Sir was this the Covenant of works I hope you will not own it in your next Answ. It is and I do still own it in the 43d section of this part of my Review and do requite Mr. Ms. pitty of me with the like bemoaning his ignorance and if I mistake not the Assemblies errour about this in their Confession of faith ch 7. art 5. I have looked into the Texts and I find Mr. M. mistaken in the meaning of Gal. 3.24 perhaps following the unnecessary supplement in our last English translation where is added to bring us which the Text hath not but onely the law was our boy-leader unto Christ that is until Christ as v. 23 25. shew and the meaning is plain that the Apostle compares the Law to a teacher or guide or overseeer of a child in his minority to which the Israelites were confined not in respect of its severity as Mr. M. makes it to whip them to Christ but as a teacher directing them though imperfectly by figures and types untill Christ and faith in him were revealed In like manner he mistakes when he saith God finds fault with the first Covenant the words being For complaining of them Heb. 8 8. nor complaining or finding fault with it and when it is translated v. 7. if the first Covenant had been faultless it is not intimated as if it were faulty but they were faulty as vers 8. shews and the Covenant is termed non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not from the fault of it but of them which occasioned complaints of them and therefore it were better translated without complaint or plaintless then faultless As for what Mr. M. alledgeth from Heb. 9.1 it no more proves that the Covenant at Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Gospel grace and not of works then because the tree of life was a symbole type or shadow of Christ or our blessed estate in him therefore the Covenant made with Adam in Paradise before his fall was not a Covenant of works but of Gospel grace or Noahs Ark typified Baptism therefore the Covenant with Noah Gen. 9. was a Covenant of Evangelical grace The Covenant of grace and of works are denominated from the promise and condition not from Gods intent in some things commanded When our Lord Christ Mar. 10.19 told the young man of entring into life he propounded the Covenant of works yet he had another end therein to wit to try and discover him Though the commands about the Sacrifices High Priest c. were to typyfie Christ yet the Law as it was propounded Covenant wise is manifestly declared to be the Covenant of works Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10 12. yea Mr. Ms. own words prove it For 1. where he cites the addition of the Law Gal. 3.17 the Law is not restrained to the moral Law but contains all the commands of the Sacrifices c. as well as the moral Law which were added because of transgressions not onely to restrain them but also for the expiating of some offences against the Law so as to obtain a partial temporary forgiveness by them as is manifest from Levit. 4. c. Now the whole Law as delivered 430 years after the Covenant with Abraham is contradistinct to the Covenant confirmed before in Christ or the promises therefore as it was a Covenant Exod. 19.5 8 it was a Covenant of works 2. If it were not a part of the Covenant with Abraham it was not the Covenant of grace for such was Abrahams Covenant but according to Mr. M. the Law was no part of that Covenant Ergo. 3. That which was a Schoolmaster to whip was not the Covenant of grace for the Covenant of grace doth not terrifie or whip but such is the Law according to Mr. M. Ergo. 4. That which was impossible to bee kept was not the Covenant of grace for that is never broken but such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. 5. If
grace of God is straitned as to our posterity which he counts absurd Hereto many things are replied by me 1. That this was never a priviledge to believers that their children should be in the Covenant of grace God never made such a promise to every true believer that he would be God to every believer and his natural seed nor commanded that wee should repute the infants of believers to bee in the Covenant of grace This hath been largely handled in my review of Mr. Ms. second conclusion 2. That the pretended priviledge of a Believers infant childrens visible Churchmembership and title to the initial seal was not from the Covenant of Gospel grace but from the peculiar dealing of God towards the nation of the Hebrews out of peculiar reasons concerning that Churchstate which that people were to have untill Christ came which is largely discussed in answer to Mr. Baxters second main argument Section 50 c. of this part of the Review 3. That even then when it was a priviledge to the Hebrew people yet title to the initial seal was not common to all Believers children not to those under eight dayes old nor to females nor to Proselites of the gate as v. g. to Cornelius and his children 4. That a priviledge there is to the Jewes even to the Nation and that arising from Gods Covenant of Gospel grace that their posterity shall after some hundred years rejection bee re-ingraffed and yet this not to any Gentile Believer Prince Preacher or Martyr concerning their posterity and therefore it is no absurdity to say that in some respect the priviledges of the Covenant of grace even of the substance of it were more large to some of the Hebrew believers then to the Gentiles in respect of posterity 5. That the personal priviledges of Abraham Mary c. were more truely pertinent to the Covenant of grace though not common to all Jews then infants visible Chvrchmembership and title to the initial seal 6. That priviledges are meer arbitrary things and that no reason why they are given to some and not to others is needfull to be assigned besides the donors will 7. That there is no more reason to say God grace is less now because infants are not visible Churchmembers and baptized then it is to say it is less because Christ is not descended from them they are not Fathers of the faithfull 8 That there were many priviledges which the Jews had which we have not as those Rom. 3.1 9.4 to have a Temple High-Priest on earth c. 9. That the want of these is abundantly recompensed by Christs comming without any particular thing of the same kinde in the stead of them and therefore the want of Churchmembership and initial seal may in like manner bee said to bee recompensed by his comming 10. That the priviledge the children of Levi had that their posterity should inherit the Priesthood be maintained by the offerings of the people be exempt from many burthens is not now to Ministers children nor any thing instead of it and yet there is as much reason from the Covenant of Levi why Ministers children should have this priviledge or somewhat instead of it as from the Covenant of Abraham that our children should have Baptism in stead of Circumcision 11. That young children were to eat the Passeover and yet children of three or four years old are not admitted to the Lords Supper and consequently after the rate of Mr. Ms. reasoning the grace of God is straitned to us in respect of our posterity 12. That the grace of God is not denied by not baptizing infants for that would infer that it did give grace 13. That by denying infants visible Churchmembership and Baptism wee do not put them out of the Covenant of grace or Church of God 14. That Baptism is a duty rather then a priviviledge 15. That the use of it is rather for us to seal to God by it that is to testifie the repentance and faith of the baptized then for God to us as assuring by it the promise of Gospel grace 16. That by baptizing an infant the parent is not assured that the child is in the Covonant of grace 17. That through the want of infants visible Churchmembership such as the Jews children had wee have no loss of priviledge but rather benefit it being a state of imperfection 18. That the want of the initial seal which the Jewes had is a benefit it having a burthen annexed to it 19. That children have no less of the grace of God by their want of Christian visible Churmembership and Baptism then the Jewes infants had 20. That parents have as much cause of comfort concerning their children without these as they have by them Mr M. p. 191. speaks thus I think indeed it would take with no sober Christian thus to argue The Jewes had it therefore we must have it But Sir to argue thus God gave such a priviledge to the whole Church of the Jewes that their infants should be reputed to belong to his Church and have the initial seal Therefore if hee have not granted to Christians that their infants shall also bee reputed to belong to his Church and partake of the initial seal then his grace to Believers under the N. T. is straitned as to their posterity This argument appears so clear to me that I must confess my self one of those dull ones who know not how to deny the consequence Answ. Mr. M. hath ill recited my frame of the argument which he rejects by leaving out the chief words without an institution Yet his new frame mends not the matter but indeed is in effect all one with that which he saith would take with no sober Christian For the Jewes and the whole Church of the Jewes are the same and had it and must have it expressed but the same which Mr. M. saith in more words Nor doth he put in any thing of Gods will or institution to have it so and therefore there is no more reason why his new frame should take with any sober Christian then the former Yet I shall view it as it is And 1. I deny the antecedent God did not give the priviledge to the whole Church of the Jews that their infants should have the initial seal meaning it of all 2. I deny the consequence if by grace he mean Gospel grace though infants of Christians be not reputed to belong to the visible Church nor are baptized yet the grace of the Gospel that is remission of sin sanctification adoption glorification which is that the Scripture makes Gospel grace is not straitned to Christians as to their posterity And the reasons of this denial are so plain to me that I see no clearness in it but should take my self dull if I should not discern its weakness For the infant visible churchmembership being by reason of the peculiar national churchstate of the Jews and circumcision of infants by reason of that which was
proper to the Hebrew people or policy into which proselytes were admitted not from the Covenant of grace common to all believers in all ages it is easie to perceive that notwithstanding the altering of these which God hath done the grace of God is as much now to our children as to theirs And here I think meet to answer Mr. Geree's argument as he frames it vindic Paedobapt pag. 38. I do grant the sequel of the major If children of Christian parents be excluded the Covenant then are the priviledges of the N. T. more restrained But that we exclude them from the Covenant of grace is false we onely deny the fictitious Covenant of Paedobaptists that God hath promised to be the God of believers and their seed nor is it any harsh divinity or derogatory from the incarnation of Christ to say the Jews converted whose infants had the birth priviledge of membership in the Jewish Church by natural generation have not the priviledge of membership in the Christian which is by spiritual regeneration Nor doth the term natural branches Rom. 11.21 24. ever agree to Gentiles ingrafted but that they are still branches of the wild Olive by nature nor any of them in the true Olive without faith or election Nor doth Mr. Geree shew how he that denies baptism to infants denies the grace and mercy of God to us if the grace of God be not tied to the Sacraments Nor doth he shew that the priviledges of believers young children of 4.5 or 6 years old are not as much straitned if they who were admitted to the Passeover are not admitted to the Lords Supper For though the reception into the Covenant and Church were sufficiently done in Baptism yet they should not have the priviledge of growth and nutrition which the Jews young children had by the Passeover if Paedobaptists doctrine of the Passeover and Lords Supper be right But I return to â—r M. Mr. M. tels me That though I say my instances of Abrahams the Virgin Mary's and Jews priviledges not being now to us do press his conclusion yet that I speak no word to vindicate them from his answer and therefore he gathers that by this time â— see that now some personal priviledges which a few of the Jews had may be denied us yet it makes nothing against his argument but if the common priviledges which every one of them had were denied us our priviledges were straitned Answ. Mr. M. doth not rightly say I spake not a word to vindicate my instances from his answer For besides all or most of those twenty things either in my Exercit. sect 3. or in my Examen par 3. sect 3 4 10 11 12. and elsewhere which do enervate his answer I did directly reply that neither was his priviledge of the initial seal to infants any other then personal not a branch of the Covenant of grace common to all in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might rely upon God and for this I alledged the faithfull before Abraham Melchizedek and Lot in his time Job and Cornelius after his time and therefore if the want of priviledges personal as he terms them doth not shew a straitning of Gods grace to us now neither doth the want of infant visible Churchmembership and Baptism now shew it That of Melchizedek Lot and Job Mr. M. saith hath been often answered but he hath no where shewed that they were not in the Covenant of grace or that by vertue of the Covenant they and their infants had right to the initial seal And as for Cornelius I never intended to prove that he was a member of the Church of the Jews nor that the priviledges and churchmembership of these proselytes of the gate were as honourable as those of the proselytes of the covenant but that though he were in the Covenant of grace yet he had not the priviledge of churchmembership in the Church of the Jews nor circumcision and therefore these priviledges whatever they were were not branches of the Covenant of grace common to all in Covenant for which by vertue of the Covenant they might rely on God as Mr. M. asserted To what I said to be Father of the faithfull Mother of Christ the priviledges Rom. 9.4 3.2 do as much belong to the Covenant of grace as Circumcision Mr. M. answers nothing Upon the words by me used that the phrases Rom. 11 2â— 24. do seem to me to import that the Jews had this priviledge to have their children reckoned in the outward administration as branches of the Olive by their birth which the Gentiles have not which speech I have altered in the first part of this Review p. 64 93. Mr. M. asks But if we Gentiles have it not then are not we I pray you straightned in that particular Answ. Yea. And I demand further when we are graffed in and so naturalized with them do we not partake of all the fatness or priviledges of the Olive with them what Scripture ever denied it Answ. That we by ingraffing are made natural branches is denied it is granted we are partakers of all the fatness and priviledges of the Olive to wit spiritual graces but not of the priviledges which the natural branches had by birth Mr. M. adds I demand yet further did the many ten thousands of Jews who were baptized in the Apostles days by their comming under this best administration of the Covenant and thereby kept their former growing in the Olive with advantage did they thereby deprive their children of that which you say was their natural priviledge if you think so produce your evidence to prove it if they were not then it seems the Jews who believed in Christ and kept their station had a greater priviledge for their children then the Gentiles who grow to together with them have for their children Answ. The natural priviledge which I say the Jews had was that their children were in the visible Church Jewish and their males to be circumcised this by their Baptism they were deprived of it being then no priviledge after Christ exhibited in the flesh and preached to be in the visible Church Jewish opposite to the Christian and to be circumcised Nor is it true that the converted baptized Jews were in the Olive afore they believed in Christ or kept their station in the visible Church Jewish but were cast out or that they should have had greater priviledges of the Covenant for their children if they had continued in the visible Church Jewish and been to be circumcised then the Gentiles whose children were not visible Christian visible churchmembers nor to be baptized as is abundantly proved by me from Scripture and otherwise in the foreparts of this Review To Mr. Ms. speech as if we expunged infants out of the Covenant it was answered that it was a calumny whereto he replies But do not you avouch that the infants of the Jews had this peculiar priviledge and birth-right to be under the administration
is also an objection against the principle fore-mentioned All that are in covenant are to have the initial seal or as Mr. C. speaks the initiatory seal followes the Covenant that if the connexion bee between seal and Covenant it is as well besween the after seal as the initial and so they may as well plead for infants comming to the Lords Supper as in Cyprians time and as the young ones of the Jews did partake of the Passeover To this Mr. C. saith Male infants were not to appear at the Passeover if so then they must appear at the Feast of Tabernacles must carry boughes from Deut. 16. â—â— 17. compared with Levit. 23.34 35 38 39 40. that though persons have a covenant right in general yet their jus in re is to be suspended and not elicited in case of incapacity or of extream coldness of the countrey or sickness c. Answ. 1. If infants were not to appear at the Passeover yet young children not to be admitted to the Lords Supper were nor doth the text tie them all to carry boughs who were to appear 2. The objection holds as much concerning the yong ones at Jerusalem who were to eat the Passeover and by Mr. Cs. reasons such yong ones should be at the Lords Supper as having Covenant interest and therefore jus ad rem nor is there any such incapacity or danger to them in eating the Lords Supper to suspend their jus in re as is to be baptized in Greenland or in extreme weakness and sickness and therefore â—y Mr. Cs. reasons they ought not to be denied the Lords Supper 3. If infants Covenant-right to the Lords Supper be suâ—pended because of their defect of understanding to examine themselves their Covenant-right to Baptism is as justly suspâ—nded til they repent and believe which are as much and more required to Baptism as self examination to the Lords Supper And if it be true then Mr. Cs. position is not right that infants ought not to be denied the use and benefit of Baptism 4. If it were in Cyprians time a corruption to give infants the Lords supper so it was to baptize them being on the same reason of no greater anâ—iquity But let 's view what hee saith for the clearer handling of his Thesis Sect. 2. He saith that mixt commands of God having some part circumstantial and vanishing some part substantial and abiding the later is binding to us since Christs time albeit the former be not and he instanceth in a 7th day Sabbath But neither he nor any other have yet proved any such substantial part abiding in the command of Circumcision and how little the instance given iâ— to his purpose is shewed before § 77 80 81. That which Mr. C. saith sect 3. is granted that consequential commandements grounded on Scripture are Scripture commandements but that any command oâ— a positive rite in the old Testament is a command to us about a positive right of the new or that in mere positive worship that should not be excluded which is not expressed is not granted to the contrary somewhat is said in the 2d part of this Review § 2 3 5. and elsewhere I have often said prove infant Baptism by good consequence and I shall yeild That federal ordinances such as are the seals are as well priviledges as precepts which Mr. C. sect 4. asserts when they are rightly admininistred is granted but it is denied that the Passeover Baptism the Lords Supper are federal ordinances or seals of the Covenant of grace in Mr. Cs. sense who p. â—31 makes Circumcision in the nature of it to bee a seal of the righteousness of faith and in like manner those otâ—er which he cals federal ordinances seals of the promise of the Covenant of grace of the righteousness of faith in their nature There â—s not a word Acts 7.2 8. by which it may appear that circumcision of the child was reckoned as the Fathers priviledge nor their own circumcision as their priviledge but only of Abrâ—ham that God gâ—ve him the Covenant of Circumcision whereby he was assured of a son by Sarah so he bâ—gate Isaac and circumcised him the 8th day which priviledg was peculiar to Abraham and to none other I know excepâ— Zachary John Baptists father be said â—o have the same priviledge nor is Rom 3.1 2 3 4. any whit to M Cs purpose to prove that circumcision is reckoned as the Fathers priviledge For 1. it is manifest that Rom. 3.1 Circumcision is to be understood metonymically as v. 30. for the circumcised sith it is not sold there was much profit by Circumcision but of Circumcision as before what advantage of the Jew nor was the priviledge vâ— the committing the oracles of God to them the priviledge of Circumcision in the abstract or by circumcision as the means by which it was but the priviledge of that people who were circumcised 2. If it were granted that the priviledge were by Circumcision yet that it was the Fathers priâ—iledge by reason of the childs Circumcision rather then his own is a vain fancy Nor doth Acts 2.38 39. yeild any more to his purpose but is most gâ—osly abused by Mr. C. as is shewed before § 21 23 Nor are the passages which he alledgeth p. 132. out of my Examen dissonant to any passages before or any after except those words of my Examen p. 10â— which I alter in the first part of this Review p. 64 93. And to his many questions from my words I answer that â—e hath not proved the Covenant of grace wherein God promiseth to be a God to them and theirs to bâ—long to every Jew but onely to Abraham and his seed that is so far as it is Evangeliacl onâ—ly to his spiritual seed whether of Jewes or Gentile and therefore I deny it was a priviledge which every Jew had to be a God to them and theirs and yet grant that Deut. 29.14 with â—0 6. was a priviledge and so I yeeld to have been what God promised Ezek 36. from the 17 to the end and Deut. 14.2 and that sundry infants of the Jews bâ—se born wâ—re in the Covenant of saving grace and Church-priviledges and that it was a priviledge to them and that the promises of the Covenant of grace are priviledges and the same now to believers and as large and honourable as then and that the promises to their children mentioned Deut. 30.6 were of the substance of the Covenant of grace in respect of the thing promised but not in respect of the persons to whom for God doth not promise to all his elect or tâ—ue believers that which he promised then in that case to the Israelites for their seed and I yeild that even base born children may bee in the Covenant of saving grace and yet these promises are not made to Church children as Mr. C. speaks â—s such but onely to the elect Nevertheless I grant the same promises now to bee made to believers which were then
to wit rigtheousness and life eternal by faith yea that they are larger now no intensively in respect of the thing promised as if a greater degree of righteousness and eternal life were promised now then was then but extensively in respect of the people to whom the Gentiles now being calâ—ed and tâ—at moâ—e amply thâ—n the Jews nor do I or any thing I say excluâ—e believers children out of the Covenant But I still say the Covenant of grace was no made then universally to a Believer and his natural seed nor now but onely to the elect of them Yet this is not an exâ—lusion of any in particular from the Covenant of grace nor an inclusion but onely a suspension of any determination of either who are elect and who not being onely known to God And therefore to Mr. Cs. question why are belieâ—ers children then excluded the Covenant which injuriously insinuates and I did exclude them I say let him answer it that doth so And thâ—ugh I grant that our priviledges now are inlarged in respect of the administration of the Covenant in that the Gospel is preached to more nations and more clearly and confirmed by the bloud of Christ c then before â—hrists comming which â—s my meaniâ—g in that speech yet it neithâ—r follows thaâ— I count that administration of the Covenant initiatory seal which is Mr Csâ—erms â—erms not mine as sâ—ch to their children was no priviledge to there must be such a like priviledge and not straâ—â—ned at least not wholly excluded as that of a like though Mr. Câ— say not the same but a like administration of the initiatory Covenant-seal to in-churched believers children now as Mr. C. in his gibberish speaks And though I say we have nothing in lieu of Circumcision but Christ come in the flesh yet I do not say nor need I that Baptism is no priviledge to believers now but I deny it to be a priviledge in lieu of Circumcision and say that as Mr. C. grants it a priviledge to believers that now they have not that manner of initiation by circumcision so it is a priviledge to them that they have no manner of initiation in lieu of it What he saith he hath shew'd before from Ez. 37.25 26 27. is examin'd before Sect. 5. Mr. C. saith Baptism is a seal of the Covenant no bare badge of Christianity as some have said albeit the more judicious of our opposites yeild this that the Covenant of grace is said properly to be sealed in Baptism and that Baptism since Christs incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into covenant with him Answ. It is true that I said Exam p. 149. the Covenant of grace is sealed properly in Baptism but Mr. C. might have taken notice that 1. I used not this phrase as mine but as Mr. Ms. 2. That I did yeild this but three lines before with this caution Baptism seals the love of God in some sense properly 3. That not long after I say that in exactness of speech it seals no grace properly taking it for propriety of speech but improperly because metaphorically as sealing is taken for assuring 4. I say as properly notes propriety of right or title or possession in opposition to anothers or that which is alien it seals as much the second as the first grace And indeed this is my meaning that though in propriety of speech Baptism may not be said to be the seal of the Covenant of grace properly sith it is but a metaphor or term translated from another thing and so shews not what the thing is but what in some respect it is like to yet it may bee thus termed the seal of the Covenant of grace properly that is as the seal of a deed assutes the thing conveyed in it to him that hath propriety in it so Baptism in that thereby we put on Christ doth signifie to the true Believer that he hath union and communion with him and that he hath thereby a propriety of right to righteousness and life by Christ according to the Covenant of grace But this doth no whit contradict what I have disputed before sect 31. against Mr. Ms. and others doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace Nor did I use the words that Baptism since Christs incarnation is the appointed seal of God to such as enter into Covenant with him Exam. p. 83. as mine own expression but as Mr. Ms. though I granted the thing meant by it Yet had I so said of my self it had not been for Mr. Cs. turn who will have it a seal of Gods Covenant to us whereas those words as I yeild them rather import it to be our seal whereby we enter into Covenant with God and engage to him which is the most genuine use of Baptism and in that respect rightly termed a badge of Christianity But Mr. C. would prove it a seal of the Covenant in another sense thus And it appears so saith he 1. in that it agrees in the essentials with circumcision as an initiatory seal Col. 2 11 12. which speech is ambiguous and yet in no sense I conceive true It is doubtfull whether he mean that to be the initiatory seal is the essentials of Circumcision and of Baptism but this sense is false For to be a seal is not essential either to the one or the other the circumcision of the Sichemites was circumcision though it were no seal to them of the Covenant of Abraham and Simon Magus his baptism was baptism though it were no seal to him of the Covenant of grace much less is it of the essence of either to bee initiatory for if there were or might be another initiatory seal as doubtless there might be if God had so appointed it yet circumcision and baptism had not been circumcision and baptism now what may be or not be without the ceasing of the thing to be is but an accident to it not of the essence of it Besides to be the initiatory seal of the Covenant of grace doth more truly agree to the spirit of God then to either of them Or whether he mean that they agree in those things which are the essentials of each but that is more palpably false for it is essential to Circumcision that the fore-skin be cut off but that is not essential to Baptism there may bee Baptism without it Nor is there a word Col. 2.12 that either expresseth this thing or yeilds any ground for proof of it as is shewed before by me here § 81. As vain is that which follows whence baptized Gentiles are said to be of the circumcision Phil. 3. and Jews said to be baptized 1 Cor. 12. For neither are Gentiles Philip. 3.3 termed the circumcision because they were baptized nor the Jews said to be baptized 1 Cor. 12.13 because they were circumcised or because of the agreement of these in the essentials But the converted Gentiles not all that were baptized but onely those who were
nature of it sheweth the same it being a Gospel Sacrament and that is a visible seal and the seal is to the Covenant hence called by the name Act. 7.8 1 Cor. â—1 25. Answ. 1. The term Sacrament as it is applied to the rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper is no Scripture term nor any other answerable to it in that use it 's a term as I said rightly in my Plea for Antipaedobaptists sect â— invented by the Latine Fathers meaning for that use Mr Craggs reply in his pamphlet termed The arraignment and conviction of Anabaâ—tism that it is used in the twelve tables in Tully pro Milone shews he had a mind to cavil rather then to answer fairly nor is the book throughout any other then a fardle of mistakings in Logick and meaning of Scripture and of cavils against my words mixt with much Poetical lightness and scoffing to which there 's no need I should return any more then the Archangels words The Lord rebuke thee 2. Nor is there any common nature of â—acraments that I know of delivered or intiâ—ated in Scripture either that of the Schoolmen out of Austin that they are visible signs of invisible grace or of the Protestants who are terme Calvinists that they are seals of the Covenant of grace And therefore Mr. C should first prove that to be of the nature of a Gospel Sacrament as the term is used afore he inferred so much as he doth from it 3 A seal it is true is to a Covenant sometimes and sometimes it is to a decree writ letter record of a thing done and so it is taken Rom. 4.11 where Abraham Circumcision is not said to be a seal of the Covenant wherein something further was promised but of the righteousness of faith which he had before attained 4. Act. 7.8 the Covenant of grace is not called by the name of a Gospel Sacrament but the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. is onely termed the covenant of circumcision because it was signified by it which was no Gospel but a Law rite The Cup in the Lords Supper 1 Cor. 11.25 is termed the New Testament in Christs bloud wherein there seems to be an hypallage and inversion by the words as they are in Matth. ch 26.28 Mar. 14 24. and by considering that of the bread he spake thus this is my body and therefore the words of the cup seem to be most fitly thus placed and expounded this cup that is the wine in it is my bloud that is signifies my bloud which is the bloud of the New Testament that is by which the New Testament is dedicated as the old was by the bloud of calves and goats Heb. 9.18 19 20. Now herein is the notion rather of a Testament then of a Covenant and what is said is said of the cup onely in the Lords Supper not of Baptism Nor is it named the Covenant but the bloud of the New Testament or the New Testament in Christs bloud nor is the term seal there used and therefore there is not a word to prove Baptism to be in its nature a seal of the Covenant of grace in this or any other of the Texts Mr. C. alledgeth I pass over that which he saith secondly Baptism is an initiatory seal as agreeing with him in the position that Baptism is that which is to be first afore the Lords Supper though his phrases be misliked I agree with him also that Baptism being once administred needs never be renewed if done according to Christs institution Yet what I said Exam. par 2. sect 4. seems to me to stand good notwithstanding any thing here said by Mr. C. nor do I think it fit to question whether it be the onely initiatory seal The 6th Section contains nothing but dictates without proof and what is said by way of proof is answered either sect 38. c. in the animadversions on the 3d. ch of the first part of Mr. Cs. book or in answer to Mr. Carter sect 80. In which it is shewed that there is no reference made Gen. 17. to a Church Covenant distinct from the Covenant of grace nor any command given Gen. 17.9 10. to a Gentile believer and his seed nor any general law about an initiatory seal never repealed as Mr. C. and others fain And for his speech he useth that the Hebrew Church albeit quà such a political Church and national c. differ from congregational Churches yet qua visibilis Ecclesia politica ordinaria so it was essentially the same with ours it seems to intimate that the Church of the Hebrews though as such a political Church it was national yet not as a visible Church political and ordinary as if it were any otherwise a visible political ordinary Church then as such a Church And when he saith as a Church visible political ordinary it was essentially the same with ours he can mean it no otherwise then of the same numerical essence for as visible and political the essence is determined to hic nunc an universal generical or specifical Church is not visible and political But that is false sith if the persons be not the same they cannot have the same numerical essence Nor can he mean it that it is essentially the same with ours as visible in the same form of government for then he must make ours Pontificial nor in the same title to Church-membership for then he must make ours national nor can he avoid it if he will maintain this plea that the Jewish Church was essentially the same with ours and as their infants were circumcised as children of Churchmembers in a Church visible political ordinary which was national so ours upon the same reason are to bee baptized but that hee must set up a national Church by natural generation nor can they of N. E justifie their way of excluding such children from the Lords Supper for ignorance if they may for scandal The old objection which Mr. C. falsly terms cavil touching covenant females is not yet answered nor ever will be it will still infringe this universal proposition All that are in Covenant with reference to Church covenant are to have the initiatory seal for a time and so will also that of Jobs family which why it should not be counted a visible political ordinary Church as well as Abrahams house in his time I see not and if none are to be baptized but such as are in an ordinary visible political Church to abide how can they of N. E. baptize the infants of such Church-members as whether in N. E. or old do not abide but are quickly dissolved as we see by experience And if None but those who are in the covenant of grace in reference to Church covenant are to be baptized but though believers because in Rome or India they are not a formed matter of a political visible Church but they are as materia informis they are quoad homines actually without and not within any political
Servant in Christ JOHN TOMBES The Contents Sect. 1. THe second argument against infant Baptism that it is will worship is confirmed Sect. 2. Dr. Homes his arguments to prove infant Baptism from Gen 17. are examined Sect. 3. Mr. Drews argument for infant Baptism from Gen. 17. is examined and it is shewed that there is not the same reason of infant Baptism as of infant Circumcision Sect. 4. The Covenant Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. was a mixt covenant Sect. 5. Acts 2.38 39. proves not either the identity of covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as it comprehends his natural seed nor the connexion between iâ— and â—aptizability Sect. 6. The argument of Mr. Josiaâ— Church in his Divine warrant for infant baptism â—om their being judged in the promise of propriety in God is answered Sect. 7. Bare judgement of charity concerning a persons interest in the promise is not a warrant to baptize Sect. 8. Acts 2.38 39. proves that interest in the promise intitles not to baptism without repentance Sect. 9. Infants are not proved by Mr. Church to bee of the visible Church Christian. Sect. 10. Infants capacity of some respects different from discipleship intitles them not to baptism Sect. 11. The agreements between circumcision and baptism do not justifie infant baptism and the validity of sealing infants with an initial seal is shewed to be null Sect. 12. Dr. Featley his argument for infant Baptism from the Covenant is examined Sect. 13. The arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant baptism are answered Sect. 14. The arguments of Mr. Stalham Mr. Brinsley Mr. Hall and a nameless Author from the Covenant for infant Baptism are examined Sect. 15. The dispute of Mr. John Geree about the extent of the Gospel Covenant to prove thence infant Baptism is examined and it is shewed that interest in the covenant did not intitle to circumcision nor is it proved it doth now to baptism Sect. 16. That the Gospel covenant is not extended to infants of believers as such Sect. 17. Mr. Cottons the Assembly's and London Ministers way of arguing for infant Baptism from the Covenant and Circumcision is recited and the method of the future progress in the Review expressed Sect. 18. Mr. Marshals reply to the first section of the 3d. Part of my Examen about the connexion between the Covenant and seal is reviewed Sect. 19. Mr. Blakes exceptions against my speeches in the point about the connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are refelled Sect. 20 The exceptions which in the first part of my Review or Antipaedobaptism sect 5. are made against the proof of connexion between the Covenant and initial seal are confirmed against Mr. Blake vind faed ch 42. sect 3. Sect. 21. The ten exceptions of the first part of my Reviewâ—gainst â—gainst Paedobaptists exposition and allegation of Acts 2.38 39. for the connexion between the Covenant and seal are vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic fâ—d ch 37 43. Sect. 22. Animadversions on ch 2. part 1 of Mr. Thomas Cobbet his Just vindication touching the explication of Acts 2.38 39. in which his exposition is shewed to be vain and mine justified Sect. 23. The arguments drawn from Acts 2.38 39. against the connexion between Covenant interest and Baptism right and infant Baptism are vindicated from Mr. Cobbets answers Sect. 24. Mr. Sidenham's notes on Acts 2.39 in his Exercitation ch 5. are considered Sect. 25. Mr. Marshals reply to my Examen about his first connclusion is reviewed and the Covenant Gen. 17. still maintained to be mixt and that Gentile self-justitiaries though reputed Christians are not termed Abraham's seed nor Gal. 4.29 proves it and that the distinction of outward and inward Covenant is not right Sect. 26. The mixture of the Covenant as by me asserted is vindicated from Mr. Blakes exceptions vind faed ch 26. Sect. 27. The four first chapters of Mr. Sidenham's Exercitation are examined and his vanity in his conceits about consequences proving infant baptism the purity of the Covenant Gen. 17. infants of believers being Abrahams seed and in Covenant is shewed Sect. 28. It is proved from Luk. 1.54 55. 19.9 Joh 8.39 Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7 1â— 29. 4.28 Rom 9.6 7 8. Matth 3.9 that the seed of Abraham to whom the proâ—ise as Evangelical is made Gen. 17 7. are onely true believers oâ— elect persons Sect. 29. The allegaâ—ion of Rom. 9 6.7 8. Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelical belongâ— are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes answer vindic faed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Eâ—ercitation ch 6. Sect. 30. Of the meaning of Mr. Marshals second conclusion the ambiguity of which is shewed Sect. 31. Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about sacraments being seals of the Covenant of grace and the several sealings of them Sect. 32. The exceptions in my Examen part 4. sect 5. against Mr. Marshals speeches about the Covenant and conditional sealing are made good against Mr. Marshal and Mâ— Blake Sect. 33. That it is no error as Mr. Baxter calls it but a truth that the Covenant of grace is made onely to the elect Sect. 34. Mr. Baxter hath not proved that the absolute promise or Covenant is not it that is sealed in baptism Sect. 35. My speech about Gods sealing to none but believers is cleered from Mr. Baxters objections Sect. 36. Christianity is not by birth nor the Church as civil corporations Mr. Marshals equivocation in the use of the term Covenant of grace Sect. â—7 That the promise Gen. 17.7 proves not an external priviledge of visible Churchmembership and initial seal to infants of Gentile believers as Mr. Marshal asserts Sect. 38. Animadversions on the 3d. ch of the first part of Mr. Thomas Cobbets Just vindic sect 1 2 3. about Gen. 17. whereby his positions about Church Covenant and external priviledges of the Covenant of grace are refeâ—led Sect. 39. Animadversions on sect 4th of the same chapter whereby the conceits of Mr. Cobbet about external being in the Covenant of grace are shewed to be vain Sect. 40. Animadversions on sect 5. of the same ch shewing that Mr. Cobbets supposed visible interest in Gods Covenant is not the rule of baptizing Sect. 41. Animadversions on the 6th sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members nor parents profession unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism Sect. 42. Animadversions on sect 7â—h of the same ch shewing that the body of the Jewish Church even the worst of them was not under the Covenant of grace in respect of external interest therein Sect. 43. That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Jewish Church and state were but one body Sect. 44. Animadversions on the 9th sect of the same ch in which
the things promised were performed Now in either of these senses it is easie to conceive how the proâ—ise might be in Christ or unto Christ and yet the Covenant not a pure Gospel-covenant He might be either a Legatee or an Executor in that Testament which contained not onely Evangelical blessings of justification c. which were common to all true Believers but also outward blessings which few or no Believers had in the New Testament I see not any inconvenience in it to say that the Testament was confirmed in Christ in respect of the promises so far as they were Evangelical and yet to say there were promises in the same which were not such nor they 〈◊〉 in Christ though in the same Covenant And whereas he calls outward things appertenances I conceive the promises of outward things Gen. 17.4 5 6 8. are as truely parts of the Covenant as the promise vers 7. Yea in the pâ—â—ces foretold the promise of Canaan hath the title of the covenant And those promises though they alter not the Covenant yet they must needs make a mixture in the covenant for by reason of them the covenant contains promises of diverse sorts And for that which is said That now under the Gospel outward things are promised to Believers I grant it yet it is nothing against the mixture in the covenant Gen. 17. which I assert For those promises are not the pâ—omise of Canaan to be progenitor of Kings which are not made to every Believer but of a different sort Whence I infer that there was a mixture in the covenant Gen. 17. which is not in the New Testament and the reference of circumcision to that covenant might be and was in respect of those domestick promises as well or more then of the Gospel promises as such Nor do I finde Rom. 4.2 3 4. any mention of the covenant Gen 17. much less is it there which Master Drew saith That it is called the covenant of justification and of grace It is true Abraham is there said to be justified by Grace yet no mention of the covenant and the text there cited is Gen. 15.6 not Gen. 17. And though Rom. 4.13 it be said The promise to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the world was not by the law but by the righteousness of saith yet it neither calls the covenant the covenant of faith nor doth it assert that the covenant Gen. 17. contained no other promise but what was Evangelical or common to all Believers of Jews and Gentiles Neither do I nor need I say that Believers stood in a different covenant towards God with that in which Abraham stood I am perswaded as Mr. Drew that Believers now are justified by the same covenant that Abraham was justified by to wit that in Abraham all Nations of the earth should be blessed Gal. 3.8 Rom. 4.13 A father of many Nations have I made thee I onely say that the covenant Gen. 17. contained promises which were proper to the Jews together with the Evangelical promises And to make those promises no parts of the covenant but onely the manner of administring and dispensing the covenant because the Holy Ghost alludes to them as figures and types of spiritual things is not right For even the promise vers 7. was in the like manner typical Abrahams natural seed inheriting shadowing the Israel of God true believers and then by this reason the promise I will be a God to thy seed should be no part of the covenant but belong to the manner of administring and dispensing the Covenant The like may be said of the rest of the promises they all shadowed out spiritual benefits and so there should be no parts of the covenant and consequently no covenant at all but a manner of administring and dispensing of I know not what covenant But the speeches vers 4 5 6 8. do contain promises as well as vers 7. and either I am uncapable to understand the meaning of terms or else promises are parts yea substantial or essential or integral parts of a covenant the description of a covenant being a collective of promises and the Scripture what Gal. 3.15 is called a covenant or testament calls vers 16. promises And therefore ro make the promises Gen. 17.4 5 6 8. not to be parts but appurtenances to the covenant or the manner of administring and dispensing it hath in my apprehension neither truth nor congruous sense Now if they be part of the covenant as hath been made appear and circumcision had its appointment by reason of them as well as the promise vers 7. it matters much to weaken Master Drew's proposition and argument though there be no difference in those Evangelical promises which make it a covenant of grace between Abrahams covenant and ours Master Drew proceeds SECT V. Acts 2.38 39. Proves not either the identity of Covenant now with that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 as it comprehends his natural seed nor the connexion between it and Baptizability NOw to go on to the proof of our second proposition in the argument which is that the reason of the command for signing c. even this promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed continues in full force under the Gospel I refer you to that Scripture Acts 2.39 to make it good The promise is unto you and to your children What promise Why this must needs relate to a former engagement yea and too made unto them to whom the Apostle Peter spake viz. Jews and I know not to what engagement this can have reference if not unto Gods promise made to Abraham of being his God and the God of his seed after him Certainly he is one of those that are blinde and yet have eyes who sees not from this text that this very promise is in force and appliable to Believers under the Gospel and if this stand good then the command for signing our Infants with the first signe of the covenant of grace viz. Baptism stands good too for this promise is the reason which God gives of his precept God will own a Believers children therefore he will have them markt for his Answ. I grant the promise I will be thy God and the God of thy seed doth still continue in force God is still the God of Abrahams seed that is his spiritual seed elect persons and true Believers and he will be again the God of Abrahams natural seed when the natural branches or posterity of Abraham the root shall be grafted in again But I deny that which Master Drew means and in the page before expressed that God doth as truely say to every believing Gentile now I am thy God and the God of thy seed as he did to Abraham the father of the faithful yea or that ever God meant by that promise to assure Spiritual or Evangelical blessings to all and every of Abrahams natural posterity the Apostle determining and proving the contrary Rom. 9 6 7 8
Wherin sundry inconsistences seem to be 1. that sealing the promise by an initial seal should be the substance of circumcision yet circumcision a distinct thing from it Is the substance of a being a distinct thing from it the substance of a man a distinct thing from a man 2. that Sealing the promise should be the substance of circumcision and yet circumcision onely a ceremony for that time Is that a ceremony to a thing which is the substance of it 3. that circumcision doth cease yet not that sealing the promise by that initial Sacrament which was no other then circumcision Let him that can read these riddles I am no such Ocdipus as to unfold them But let Mr. Church use what gibberish he please I know no other initial Sacrament then that of circumcision mentioned in the old Testament nor any sealing then commanded but it and if it cease then all the ruls about it cease to bind and so are no rule to us now But saith he pag. 41. The sealing of promise is not ceased far seals are added in dispensation to the covenant To which I reply A thing is said to cease either of right or of fact which was of right to be or had being before but not now There was no sealing by an initial seal aforetime that had being of right or of fact aforetime but circumcision which Mr. Church saith was the initial seal aforetime therefore circumcision ceasing sealing with the initial seal aforetime ceased there being no other foretime But saith Mr. Church it is not ceased for seals are added in this dispensation to the covenant he means doubtless baptism and the Lords Supper and by seals other seals and so his reason is sealing of the promise by an initial Sacrament which was aforetime is not ceased because other seals are added which is as if one should say the night is not past because the sun is risen the reason is good to the contrary there are other seals added therefore the sealing with the initial seal aforetime is ceased But saith he it did not of right cease with the Jewish church state For it was not peculiar too that church as a national church Answer If circumcision were not perticular to the Jewish Church-state I know nothing peculiar to it And if it were not peculiar to that church as a national church why was the nation peculiarly called the circumcision and other people the uncircumcision Rom. 3.30 And for that which is alledged that promise was scaled to Infants by the initial Sacrament long before the existence of a national church and to Infants of strangers which were not of that nation I conceive neither is true For circumcision was not till Abrahams nation were a Church For he had before that time taught them the way of the Lord Gen. 18. â—9 and they worshipped the true God as appears by the many altars he built to Jehovah And though Abrahams house was but a small nation yet it was a nation And though Infants of strangers were circumcised yet it was not without in corporation into that nation so that they were of that nation if not by birth yet as proselytes added thereto nevertheless if it had been before the existence of the national church of the Jews it might cease with that church-state as the distinction of clean and unclean beasts was before Abrahams dayes as appears by Gen. 17.2 and yet that distinction ceased with the Jewish Church state As for his second reason it is of no force For when he saith Sealing the promise by an initial Sacrament is principally in reference to the Catholike Church he means it I conceive of baptism else Acts 8.36 37. 10.47 are cited to no purpose But there is no colour of consequence in Mr. Churches reason thus framed Baptism joined men to the Universal Church therefore Circumcision was not peculiar to the Jewish Church-state or that it ceased not with the Jewish Church-state As for his other assertion That one that cannot be rightly judged to be of the Catholick Church cannot have the promise rightly sealed to him by an initial Sacrament though he be a Member of a particular Church it being of no weight to the present Argument I shall not so fitly meddle with it till I come to answer the 20. ch of Mr. Bs. first part of Plain Scripture proof c. As for his third Argument it proves not the Consequence For though faith and repentance be required of some afore circumcision yet it was not required of infants afore circumcision But afore baptism it is required of all Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.16 Acts 2.38 8.36 37 38. To the fourth I say though infants now are capable of the promise as the Jews infants were and that they could bear baptism as well as the Jews infants could circumcision yet without a like command which cannot be found they are not to be baptized as the other were to be circumcised As for the fifth Argument it is false That baptism is as appliable to infants as circumcision was for there is not the like command without which though it were that no more action were required in the subject to be baptized then in the subject to be circumcised which is false as appears from Matt. 28.19 Mark 16 16. Acts 2.38 Acts 8.36 37 38. and though it were that the parities were more between them then they are yet they make no rule for baptism without a command or institution But it is false which he saith that baptism is the same Sacrament with Circumcision And as for the twelve parities brought by Mr. Church some are doubtful as the first that they are both initial Sacraments of the Covenant of grace in some sense with some limitations it may be true but in other even in that sense it is commonly taken it is not true to wit that the essence of them consists therein and that they are so to all rightly circumcised or baptized The second is likewise ambiguous in some sense true in some false Those that might not be rightly judged to be in the promise might be circumcised however it be concerning baptism And those that may be rightly accounted to be of the Church meaning the invisible yet are not therefore to be baptized The third likewise is doubtful by reason of the different waies of being accounted to the Church and the doubt whether a person be to be accounted of the Church afore baptism or after The Words Acts 2.41.47 seem to prove that they are added to the Church after baptism Neither is the fourth or fifth certain For women ordinarily entred into the Church aforetime without circumcision and did eat the Passeover The eighth is not true of every circumcised persons circumcision nor of every baptized persons baptism that it is an external seat of the righteousness of faith In the tenth something is untrue For in the new Dispensation as the phrase is are not both temporal and spiritual promises sealed as
well as in the former if he mean it of the same temporal promises we have better promises Heb. 8.6 but not the â—ame not the promise of the land of Canaan of greatness prosperity c. but rather a prediction of persecution if we will live Godly in Christ Jesus Christians have Christ and all other things by that part of the Covenant made with Abraham which is spiritual but not by that part which is proper to the Israelites In the eleventh Mr. Church seems to be out in his computation about the beginning of baptism and end of Circumcision He saith Circumcision of right ended when baptism began to be an initial Sacrament and that was not surely till Iohn began to baptize which was not till the fifteenth year of Tiberius as is plain from Luke 3.1 2. now mark his reason For Christs Circumcision was the period of it Now if Christs circumcision was the period of it then it did cease almost thirty years before baptism began to be an initial Sacrament Christ being circumcised in the Reign of Augustus But whence doth he gather that Circumcision of right ended when Baptism began to be an initial Sacrament For my part I find no such thing in Scripture If our Lords words Iohn 7.22 23. do not prove it was then in force yet those speeches of the Apostle Ephes. 2.14 15 16. of abolishing the Law of Commandments in Ordinances and slaying the enmity by his Cross and Col. 2.14 of blotting out the hand-writing of Ordinances which was against us and took it away nailing it to his Cross do determine that Circumcision did of right continue until Christs death and so some years after baptism began to be a Sacrament initial The usual Doctrine is that the Ceremonies of the Law became dead with Christ deadly after the open promulgation of the Gospel and calling of the Gentiles Diodati annot on Matth. 27.51 And this breach was a sign that by the death of Christ all Mosaical Ceremonies were annihilated But Mr. Church tells us Circumcision ceased to be needful when Iohn began to baptize for the Law is said to continue but untill John Luke 16.16 To which I answer I know not why Circumcision should not be as needful as the Pass over which our Saviour himself observed Luke 22.15 and offering the gift to the Priest that Moses commanded Matth. 8.4 I presume the command of Circumcision was in force till after Christs death as well as the command of the Passeover seventh day Sabbath and other things As for Mr. Church his reason if it were good That circumcision was needless when Iohn began to baptise because it is said the law was untill Iohn by the same reason he might say all the rest of the Law yea and the Prophets were needless when Iohn began to baptize But the meaning is the Ministery of the Law and Prophets continued till Iohn or as it is Matth. 11.13 all the Prophets and the Law prophecied until Iohn that is declared Christs comming as future and when Iohn began then the Kingdom of God began to be preached and therefore Mark 1.1 2. The beginning of the Gospel of Iesus Christ the Son of God is said to be upon Iohns preaching for then the Messiah was named as present Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the World John 1.29 Lastly saith Mr. Church the Apostle plainly teacheth that Baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that Circumcision was to Gods people aforetime Col. 2.11.12 arguing against the continuance of Circumcision in this Dispensation he uses two Arguments which argue no less For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism was now the sign of our Mortification for which circumcision served aforetime To which I answer neither doth the Apostle plainly that is in express terms teach Col. 2.11 12. what ever Mr. Church or Mr. Calvin say That baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that circumcision was to Gods people aforetime nor do his reasons prove it For by the same reason we might say it of putting away of leaven out of their houses and keeping the Passeover with unleavened bread baptism is the same Sacrament to Christians that the feast of unleavened bread was to Gods people aforetime For 1. Christ being come who was the body of the old shadows they of right ceased 2. That baptism is now the sign of Mortification for which keeping the feast with unleavened bread served aforetime 1 Cor. 5.7 8. But were all these parities between circumcision and baptism which Master Church mentions right yet they prove not his Conclusion That the initial sacrament in this dispensation is as appliable to infants of Christians as the initial sacrament aforetime was to infants of Gods people For if not all these yet as many other parities may be reckoned at least according to Paedobaptists Hypotheses between baptism and the Passeover as that they are both Sacraments of the Covenant of grace both ceremonies to be used about those that might rightly be judged in the promise and accounted of the Church the ordinary way of communion in the Church not allowed to those without engaging to observancy of the Covenant according to the several administrations signs of mortification external seals of the righteousness of faith distinguishing Gods people from infidels to cease at Christs comming c. and yet I suppose Mr. Church will not have them the same Sacrament Yea as many disparities between circumcision and baptism may be reckoned as Mr. Church reckons parities as that the one was a shadow of Christ to come not the other the one a token of the mixt covenant made to Abraham which was of promises peculiar to the Jews not the other the one a domestick action to be done in the house the other an Ecclesiastick belonging to the Church the one to be done by the parents in that respect not so the other the one with cutting off a part not the other the one with drawing blood not the other the one to males onely the other to females also the one to be on the eighth day whatever it were the other not limitted to any precise day the one made a visible impression on the body and that permanent not so the other the one to be done with an artificial and sharp the other with a natural and not wounding instrument the one to all males belonging to the house of Abraham even infants but not to others though Godly except they joined themselves to that family the other to believers or disciples of all nations the one engaging to keep Moses his Law not so the other But be the disparities or parities what they will the only rule in these meer positive rites is the institution or command so that were the Sacraments as they are called the same in kind use analogy or what other way they may be deemed the same yet without a rule of command or example
prohibition in forbidding terms or a prohibition by consequence It is granted in so many express words infants are not prohibited to receive baptism no nor the Lords Supper yet they are by good consequence to be denied both in as much as both are disagreeing from the institution and practice of those rites in the new Testament Wherefore to the Doctors argument I except against the form of it as containing more then three terms the predicate in the conclusion not being in the Major part of the medium in the major being left out in the Minor And if it be thus formed all they who are comprized within the covenant of faith and are no where prohibited to receive the seal thereof may and ought to be baptized But infants of believers are comprized c. Ergo. I deny the Major if meant of Gods covenant to us or promise either of faith or righteousness to infants by it as the alleging Gen. 17.7 imports the Doctor meant But grant it of those who are comprized within the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers in which sense I deny the Minor that children that is infant-children are comprized in the Covenant of faith by their covenanting to be believers yea and if the proposition be universal all children or all infant-children of believers are comprized in Gods covenant of faith or promise that he will give them faith or righteousness by faith I deny it Nor is the Major proved by the Doctor For it is no unjust thing to deny baptism to a person to whom it is not appointed now baptism is appointed to disciples or believers not to whom God promiseth to give faith or righteousness by faith Besides were it true that God had so promised it and confirmation of it were due yet without institution confirmation by baptism were not due God hath other waies to confirm it as by his Oath Heb. 6.17 the blood of his Son 1 Cor. 11.25 his Spirit 2 Cor. 1.22 A man that is bound to pass an estate and to seal it may not be bound to a further Confirmation by fine and recovery Besides its no injustice not to confirm ones right who doth not claim and prove it But this infants do not And for the Minor the words Gen. 17 7. have nothing about the second part of the proposition nor do indeed prove any to be comprized in that promise but Abraham and his seed of which sort none of Gentile-believers children are but those that are true believers as he was or elect by God to adoption of children The objection the Doctor brings in is not rightly framed nor do I deny the answer the Doctor gives is sufficient to overthrow it as so formed But what the Doctor dictates That all true believers and their children are to be reckoned among children of the promise is contradictory to the Apostles determination Rom. 9.7 8. as the Apostle is expounded by Dr. Featly himself in the New Annot. on Rom. 9.8 in which he thus speaks not all they who are carnally born of Abraham by the course of nature are the children of God to whom the promise of grace was made but the children of promise that is those who were born by vertue of the promise those who by Gods special grace were adopted as Isaac by a special and singular promise was begot by Abraham they only are accounted for that seed mentioned in the Covenant I will be thy God and the God of thy seed SECT XIII The Arguments of Mr. William Lyford from the Covenant for infant-baptism are examined MR. William Lyford in his Apology for Infant-baptism page 33. thus disputes All that are taken into the Covenant of grace ought to receive the initial sign what ever the sign be that God shall chuse and that according to the commandment of God and our Lord Jesus Christ. But infants are taken into Covenant with their parents as is proved therefore by the Commandment of the Lord they ought to receive the sign which God hath enjoined to be used and that sign is baptism To which I answer by denying the Major and for his proof out of Gen. 17.7 12. I deny 1. That there is any command for any other initial sign but Circumcision 2. That circumcision is there appointed to all who are taken into the Covenant of grace not to Lot Melchisedeck Job or their children not to the females of Abrahams house not to the males under eight daies old not to the Proselytes of the gate as Cornelius was 3. That the adequate reason why any was to be circumcised was interest in the Covenant Gen. 17.7 but the command only For both Ishmael who was not in the covenant was to be circumcised because of the command and as hath been shewed others in the covenant were not to be circumcised through defect of the command Nor is the Minor true if understood of all the infants of believers or any of them as their infants nor is there a word to prove it Gen. 17.7 which is onely a promise to Abrahams seed and they of the Gentiles are only true believers or elect persons But perhaps Mr. Lyford mends the matter in the next form which is this pag. 34. If infants have a right to the covenant and the initial sign therof then it is a wrong to deny it to them But infants have a right to the Covenant and the initial sign thereof both by Gods original grant Gen. 17.11.14 and by Christs confirmation of that Covenant made to their Fathers Rom. 15 8. therefore it is a wrong to deny it them The Covenant under which we are is the Gospel Covenant made long since with us Englishmen and our infant-seed with a command of giving them the sign which at first was circumcision and now baptism by the same Divine authority enjoined and commanded to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant I answer by denying the Minor and to the proof by denying that Gen. 17.11 14. there is command of any other initial sign than Circumcision or that circumcision is commanded to all that had a right to the Covenant or that the Gospel Covenant was made long since with us Englishmen and our seed as our seed or that there was in that of circumcision any command to us to baptize infants or that Divine authority hath commanded baptism to be given without any exception of any within the Covenant But I affirm he hath commanded only to baptize those in the Covenant who are disciples or believers But Mr. Lyford adds further p. 37. All those to whom the blessings and promises in the Covenant do belong t them also belongs baptism the sign thereof by the doctrine of St. Peter and of Jesus Christ himself But to infants of believing parents the blessings and promises of the Covenant do belong before actual faith therefore by the Doctrine of the Holy Ghost in Scripture such infants ought to be baptized before actual faith The Major or first
8. which Mr. Geree and other Paedobaptists call the covenant of grace and usually make the interest in it the reason of circumcision and was sealed by it and That it was the same Covenant is apparent from v. 19. now then it was a covenant of personal benefit if it derive grace to the person or any other personal benefit If it were only the Covenant containing the special prerogative mentioned then it was not the covenant sealed to any but Isaac not to any of the rest of Abrahams house that were circumcised 2. It is insufficient For it shews not that to Ishmael any promise either Evangelical or Political in the Covenant made with Abraham did belong though he were circumcised which he should have done if he would have answered to the objection and have vindicated his argument from it As for his inference Therefore notwithstanding that exception Ishmael when circumcised might be and was a member of the visible Church in Abrahams family and in regard of his person within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham and so in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but under it I answer I know not what it is to be under the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham except it be to be circumcised and therefore I count this speech that Ishmael when circumcised might be within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham to be an inept tautology as if he had said Ishmael when circumcised might be circumcised But were his speaking right yet it is impertinent For the thing he should have shewed was not that Ishmael notwithstanding that exception was a visible Church-member within the external administration of the Covenant with Abraham or in the judgement of charity no alien from the covenant of grace but that any of the promises in the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. did belong to him and so that he was circumcised because of his interest in the covenant Yet how Abraham could in judgement of charity judge him no alien from the Covenant of grace but under it whom God so plainly excepted out of that Covenant which Paedobaptists themselves take to be the Covenant of grace I see not It is true that God heard the petition of Abraham for Ishmael Gen. 17.18 but that God granted him spiritual blessings doth not appear but the contrary v. 20. where the blessings granted upon Abrahams Petition for him are recited However it is clear that he did exempt him from the covenant v. 21. and therefore he was not circumcised by vertue of his interest in the Covenant nor did his circumcision seal that interest As for what Mr. Geree saith no more can be truly gathered from thence then what may be said of Melchisedec or Lot it is not true For though it s not said expressely that God established his covenant with them yet they are reckoned among the righteous and so in the Covenant of grace But for Ishmael when Abraham begged for him God answers how far he would grant for him and then addes adversatively But my covenant will I establish with Isaac that is not with Ishmael which can be no other then the covenant before mentioned v. 2 4 5 6 7 8. which thing was further manifested by Gods ratifying Sarahs desire of Ishmaels election Gen. 21.10 12. where he is excluded from Abrahams seed from which the Apostle argueth Ishmael not to have been a child of the promise nor elect nor born after the Spirit but reprobate a persecutor born after the flesh And therefore in my Exercit. I cited those texts which Mr. Geree did ill to omit sith they served for my purpose to prove that Ishmael had no part in the Covenant made with Abraham To the instance of Esau Mr. Geree tels me The case of Esau was but as that of Ishmael and others that were of Israel but were not Israel they were under the external administration of the Covenant though not really within the covenant of grace This distinction you your self acknowledge in the fourscore and sixteenth page of your answer when you say it is one thing to be under the outward administration another thing to be under the covenant of grace It s true these are distinct but those that are under the outward administration are to be reputed under the covenant of Grace and thence were to be sealed thus was it with Esau for that sentence the elder shall serve the younger Gen. 25.23 could sound no higher in Isaac's apprehension then that difference which was put between Ishmael and Isaac To which I reply If Ishmael were not really within the covenant of grace then Mr. Geree yields what I proved before that the promise of the Covenant of grace did not belong to him and if it were so then Ishmael and Esau were circumcised though no promise in the covenant Gen. 17.2 4 5 6 7 8. did belong to them and because this was revealed to Abraham and Isaac they were not reputed under the covenant of grace and thence to be sealed as Mr. Geree saith Nor is it likely but Isaac did apprehend concerning Esau by the Oracle Gen. 25.23 that none of the promises in the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17.2 4 5 6 7 8. did belong to him However God appointing circumcision to these to whom he intended no interest in the covenant it follows he made not interest in the covenant the adequate reason of each persons circumcision but his own institution To the instance of strangers in Abrahams family he answers By Gods own testimony Abraham would keep none in his family but such as were outwardly conformable to the waies of God Gen. 18.19 and so were in the state of Proselytes and interessed in the Gospel covenant Answ. Whether Abraham did or might keep any infidel in his family was considered by me in the first part of this Review s. 37. But for the text Gen. 18.19 it doth not testify that Abraham would keep none in his family but such as were outwardly conformable to Gods waies but that he would command them to keep Gods waies and shall keep the way of Jehovah but this being spoken indefinitely is equipollent onely to a particular as appears in Ishmael and Esau and others But were this granted they were so conformable and were so proselytes and were in some sort interessed in the benefit of the Gospel covenant yet it follows not that any promise in that covenant did belong to them much less that such interest was the reason of their being circumcised As for Mr. Gs. useful observation that circumcision was not annext to the Covenant only because it was a mixt covenant sith it was appliable to the Proselyte Gentiles and their seed that were not onely without but uncapable of interest in the land of Canaan I know not what use there is of it for his purpose it goes upon a mistake that circumcision was to be to none but who had interest
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
blanck childrens federal interest precious parental priviledge cavenant right and such like gibberish according to the Paedobaptists supositions about the imagined covenant to father and child right of infants to the first seal thereby and this a great priviledge without which no revealed grounds ordinary of hope and life this is the substance of the tale that if Peter had told them their infants were not to be baptized who before were circumcised he had added more grief to the spirits of the Jewes pressed with the sense of their wish against their children Matth. 27.25 and therefore he is to be conceived Acts 2.39 to have told them of their infants right to baptism Now surely in my apprehension if Peter had told them such a tale as Master Cobbet imagins he did even then when so great perplexity of spirit was upon them by reason of the horrid sin of crucifying Christ and their imprecation on them and their children they being then indisposed to laughter must in all likelyhood have been much moved either with grief or anger against such a Doctor as would mock them with such a receipt as was no more to their disease then the promise of a feather to weare is to revive a man almost dead with the pain of the collick For what comfort could this be to them concerning themselves who expected the heaviest wrath due to them for their sin or concerning their children on whom they wished a most heavy curse to be told of a priviledge for them and their children which as it was to them before was painfull in the use so was it a heavy yoke in the obligation to be continued in an other rite which of it self was but washing with cold water and in the fruit of it before God yielded no benefit without faith and repentance and in the church yielded at best but a title of church-membership by which they had no benefit but what they might have without it noâ— would stand them in any stead for church-communion without their actual believing It is clear Acts 2.39 is an encouragement to the duties and expectation of the good mentioned v. 38. Now what encouragement is it to repent to be told that the promise was already to them in external right and administration and to their infants though not as yet penitent or believers such a motive might rather have tended to keep them in impenitency being in so good case already in the estate they were in And for baptism into the Name of Christ such a motive tended rather to disswade them from it as might fill their mindes with high conceits of their and their childrens covenant-right even by vertue of their being in the Jewish church without faith in Christ or joyning to the christian church And for the good of remission of sins before God which they needed what assurance could they have of it by telling them of their and their childrens having the promise already as Jews without personal faith and repentance in external right and administration before men As for the falsity of the speech as expounded by Master Cobbet it is shewed before what he would burden his opposites with as if denyeng infant-baptism they counted them as Pagans strangers from the Covenant without hope in reference to ordinary and revealed grounds and ways of hope and life Ephes. 2.11 12.13 is a meer Calumny For setting aside their talk of initiatory seal and external covenant which they cannot say assure life to the infants of believers without election we assure as much by the covenant of grace justification by Christs bloud and sanctification by his Spirit which is effectual calling and they can in trueth assure no more nor any other way though to uphold their credit and to win the affections of credulous parents they befool them with idle talk of a covenant which the Scripture never mentions and of sealing that covenant by baptism which the Scripture is silent of The texts Ezek. 16.21 20. Deut 30.6 will be examined afterwards Why he bids see Deut. 29.29 I know not unless it be that we may discern his weakness in alledging the Scriptures impertinently sith it cannot be meant of infants to whom the revealed things do not belong that they may heare them and do them in infancy The second consideration is in brief this that the Apostles who as yet preached not for the abolishing of Mosaical rites but were indulgent to the Jewes Acts 21.20 22 23 24. would not give such manifest and just offence to them as to hold forth an exclusion of their babes from right in that covenant of Abraham it self whereof circumcision was a visible seal as the places quoted in Gen. 17.11 13. and Acts 7.8 declare To which I answer By my exposition there is no exclusion of babes from the promise Acts 2.39 though it be restrained to those who are effectually called sith babes may be said to be effectually called by the Spirit of God according to election nor doth my exposition exclude the Jewes infants from the Covenant Gen. 17.7 or circumcision or in the least manner meddle with that point Nor do I think the promise Gen. 17.7 to be the same with that Acts 2.39 If it were yet how it may be understood otherwise then Master Cobbet conceives is shewed above The third consideration setting aside his phraseology is this that if Peter should intend to exclude infants from baptism it were to be cross to Pauls doctrine Rom. 15.8 who makes it Christs end not to evacuate undermine or abolish by his coming the promises indefinitely made to the fathers whether in Gen. 17.7 or Deut. 30.6 or the like or respecting parents or children but to confirm the same Ibid. But how this consequence is made good I cannot conceive but do deny it and expect a proof of it ad Graecas Calendas Master Cobbet concludes the chapter with an answer to the objection that if this were granted of those Jewish children what is this to our childrens federal interest in the daies of the Gospel and he answers 1. That it proveth that by the Apostles since Christs ascension this tenent of the children of visible members of the church are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace is of divine authority and iâ— no humane invention Ans. 1. In the objection the concession was that those Jewish children were never before denyed to be visibly in Abrahams covenant which Master Cobbet alters thus are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace now it may be granted those Jewish children were visibly in Abrahams covenant and yet denyed that they are visibly interessed in the covenant of grace the covenants being not the same every way and it being certain as in the case of Saul and others a person may be visibly interessed in the covenant of Abraham and yet not in the covenant of grace 2. Infants visible interest in the covenant of Abraham I know no otherwise then by circumcision and this sure the Apostles taught
of no other then the Jewish children 3. The text Acts 2.39 speaks not of visible interest in the covenant of grace by external administration 4. If it did yet it speaks of none other children but Jewish and so not of ours and therefore the tenent may be an humane invention notwithstanding this text and the concession of the objectour 2. Saith Master Cobbet these Jewes are eyed by the Apostles as persons to partake of priviledges of a Church of Christians as was baptism and therefore what extent of federal right and priviledge is granted by the Apostles to them and theirs in that way is equally belonging to Gentiles in a like way Ans. the Jewes were not tyed by the Apostles to partake of baptism without the repentance of each person to be baptized nor is it by the Apostle made a federal right and priviledge but a duty to which the promise did encourage nor is the promise said to be to them or any of their children but the effectually called so that were the conclusion granted Master Cobbet yet his purpose is not gained that the Gentiles infants are to be baptized 3. Saith he to suppose God by Apostolical ratification to allow to children of Jewish parents coming on to Christ c. a larger priviledge then to Gentile parents as came on to Christ c. is to make God a respector of persons Ans. 1. It is not yet proved that the Apostle allowes to children of Jewish parents the priviledge Master Cobbet means 2. the Jewes Acts 2.39 were not considered as coming on to Christ but as guilty of crucifying him and under horrour of conscience for it 3. The priviledge of baptism or the promise in respect of external right and administration as Master Cobbets phrase is could not belong to the Jewes at that present therefore the Apostles speech had been false in Master Cobbets sense For he cannot assert they were then come to Christ but coming on to Christ nor is it certain that many of them ever came to Christ. But the promise is de praesenti in respect of external right and administration which is Master Cobbets sense is false of persons which were not come to Christ except he will have the Apostle assert a right of baptism to them without faith 4. The Jewish parents children had then a larger priviledge then the Gentiles in the first offer of the Gospel as they had larger priviledges before Rom. 9.3 4 5. and they shall have larger priviledges at their calling hereafter if I understand the Apostle Rom. 11.24 25 26 27 28. And herein God is not such a respector of persons as Peter Acts 10.34 denies him to be so as not to accept a Gentile who feareth him and worketh righteousness as well as a Jew Acts of special grace undue to some persons not to others argue not unjust respect of persons in God but acts of judgment awarding good to one that fears him and works righteousness because of such a Nation and not to another who doeth the same because he is not of that nation contrary to his declarations promises lawes by which he hath bound himself would argue unjust prosopolepsy his declarations promises and lawes being general and so the being of that Nation extirnsecal to the cause Saith he the force of the words seem to carry it that the same promise which was to those Jewes actually in Church and Covenant-estate was intentionally to these afar off which were strangers actually from a like estate whether those of the ten tribes or rather those of the Gentiles and should be actually to them when they came to be called actually into the fellowship of that covenant and Church-estate Now what promise was that verily a promise which carried with it a partial reference unto their children The promise is to you and to your children And the same is unto them afar off whom God shall call Scil. in reference to their children also Ans. There is no colour from the words that Acts 2.39 the promise is meant to be actually to those Jewes and intentionally to those afar off nor doth this conceit agree with Master Cobbets exposition who will have it to be de praesenti to belong to the persons recited and consequently actually to all there named Nor do I know how to make true sense of this his speech For the promise is either said to be in respect of the act of the promiser or of the thing promised In the former sense the meaning of Master Cobbet should be this that God had made the promise to the Jewes already actually but he had not made the promise to those afar off but intended to do it afterwards But this sense agrees not with Master Cobbets and other Paedobaptists conceit who would have the promise to be that to Abraham Gen. 17.7 But that promise was made almost 2000 years before not made to those Jewes then nor to any afar off afterwards that can be shewed In respect of the thing promised whether it be as I say Christ manifested in the flesh for the remission of sins before God it is not true that it was actually then to the Jewes mentioned Acts 2.39 For they were not yet repenting believing persons or it be meant of remission of sins in respect of external right and administration it is not true that the promise was actually then to them in external right they had no right then to claim baptism being not then believers neither had they the promise in external administration de praesenti for they were not actually baptized which I think is the external administration meant I cannot imagine Master Cobbet would be so vain as to conceive Peter told them they were circumcised but Peter exhorts them to be baptized and therefore the promise was no more actually to the Jewes then present then to those afar off Nor is it true that the Jewes present were then actually in Church and Covenant-estate if it be meant of the Christian Church and Covenant of grace in Christ for they were not repenting believers and if it be meant of the Jewish Church and Covenant-estate which they had as descended from Abraham by natural descent and by reason of circumcision so the Gentiles were never ealled or to be called actually into that fellowship of that Covenant and Church-estate but rather out of it Nor if they had been called into it had that Church and Covenant-estate at all conduced to their interest into the Christian Church and Covenant of grace but rather to the contrary And for the promise it is true there is a reference to their children but not because they were believers children or their children but by vertue of Gods call and it is true the promise is to Gentiles childâ—en and Jewes when called of God and no otherwise and consequently no Birth-priviledge to either intitling to baptism And thus is that magnified chapter of Master Cobbet abundantly answered SECT XXIII Master Sidenhams notes on Acts 2.39
there were no need to have stayed the Reader any further about it were it not that some of your Exceptions do almost recall your grant If it be in substance the same though you should reckon up a thousand accidental and local differences it were nothing to the purpose Answer It is true I granted this Conclusion understanding it according to the Explication in his Sermon pag. 9 10. in these words That the new and living way to life was first revealed to Adam immediately after his fall and that blessed promise concerning the seed of the woman often renewed and the Patriarchs faith therein and salvation thereby plentifully recorded in Scripture But the first time that ever it was revealed under the express name of a League or Covenant was with Abraham who because he was the first explicite Covenanter is called the Father of the Faithfull and ever since clearly hath all the world been divided into two distinct bodies and families the one called the Kingdom City Houshold of God to which all who own the way of life were to joyn themselves and thâ—se were called the children of God the sons of Abraham the children of the Kingdom all the rest of the world the Kingdom of the Devil the seed of the Serpent strangers from the covenant of grace without God in the world c. The substance of this covenant of grace on Gods part was to be Abraham's God and the God of his seed to be an all-sufficient portion an all-sufficient reward for him to give Jesus Christ to him and righteousness with him both of justification and sanctification and everlasting life Gen. 17.1 c. Gal. 3.15 Rom. 4.3 John 8.56 On Abraham's part the substance of the covenant was to believe the promised Messiah to walk before God with a perfect heart to serve God according to his revealed will to instruct his family c. Gal. 3.16 Gen. 17.1 18.19 Gal. 3.17 19. In which passage I did conceive that Mr. M. meant by the substance of the covenant of grace the promise as it is purely evangelical which I conceived to be the same with the new covenant mentioned Heb. 8.9 10 11 12. 10.16 17. And this I was sure was not made with all Abrahams natural posterity much less with any believing Gentiles natural posterity as such but onely so many of either as are elect and believe as Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 3.29 is determined and so none of a believing Gentiles children are in this covenant but they that are believers or elected to faith in Christ. But then this would not serve Mr. Ms. turn And therefore notwithstanding those words in his Sermon yet in his Defence pag. 90. he saith The covenant of grace contains not onely saving grace but the administration of it also in outward ordinances and Church-privileges but in what sense he means it contains them he declares not That which is contained in a covenant is either the promise or the condition The seal writing writer pen and such like adjuncts are never called the covenant nor contained in it though they be instrumental to hold forth the covenant Now where any promise is of outward ordinances and Church-privileges or how they should be a condition of the promises I understand not He distinguisheth pag 106. of the covenant of grace thus The covenant of grace is sometimes taken strictly sometimes largely as it is considered strictly it is a covenant in which the spiritual benefits of justifi-fication regeneration perseverance and glorification are freely promised in Christ. Secondly as the covenant of grace is taken largely it comprehends all evangelical administrations which do wholly depend upon the free and gracious appointment of God and this administration is fulfilled according to the counsel of Gods will sometimes it was administred by his appointment in types shadows and other legal ordinances this covenant of administration God said Zachary 11.10 he did break with the people of the Jews and at the death of Christ he did wholly evacuate and abolish and in stead thereof brought in the administration we live under where also he rejected the Jews or broke them off from being his people in covenant and called the Gentiles and graffed them in ramorum defractorum locum into the place of the branch and broken off as your self pag. 65. do with Beza rightly express it But herein Mr. M. confounds what in his Sermon he distinguished the covenant of grace and the administration of it He saith The covenant of grace largely taken comprehends all evangelical administrations and saith This administration is fulfilled By the evangelical administrations he means the old legal ordinances afore Christs death and the administration we live under which is baptism and the Lords Supper pag. 120. he saith Our Divines own the outward administration of the covenant under the notion of foedus externum the outward covenant Now if there be sense in these passages I must needs charge my self with dulness who cannot discern it Is it sense to call that a covenant without a Trope which is neither a promise nor a condition of a covenant to say that the covenant contains or comprehends evangelical administrations and yet to call it the administration it self to say this administration was administred and not something by the administration administred But let us considee what others make of this distinction of covenant strictly and largely taken or which is all one the inward and outward covenant I have met with none that speaks more distinctly than Mr. Anthony Burges in his Book entituled Spiritual Refining Sect. 8. Serm. 64. pag. 393. who was one of the Assembly The external covenant is that whereby in an outward visible manner God doth own a people add they externally profess their owning of him but yet in their hearts and souls they do not stedfastly cleave unto God and faithfully keep this covenant in the conditions thereof The internal or inward covenant is that whereby God doth in a spiritual powerfull manner take a people to him working in their hearts all those gifts and graces promised in the covenant as regeneration remission of sins adoption and the like And in this sense onely the truly godly are in the covenant and they are onely Gods people and he their God This distinction of a covenant into outward and inward is not a distinction of a genus into its species so much as a distinction of a thing into the several administrations and dispensations of it In this passage there is want of clearness as well as in M. Marshals He tels us negatively that it is not a distinction of a genus into its species yet with some mincing of the matter so much as if it might be the distinction of a genus into its species though not so much which is an expression of a man who would say somewhat but cannot well tell what to say But if it be not a distinction of a genus into its species what distinction is
it were made to any mans seed but Abrahams not to every believing Gentile and his natural seed And certainly this difference between the covenant Gen. 17. and the covenant of grace will be much to the purpose to shew the Covenant Gen. 17 not to be to a believing Christian and his seed and that though circumcision of male infants should have its reason barely from the interest of the circumcised in that Covenant yet such a Covenant-interest not belonging to our children who are of the Gentiles cannot be a reason to entitle them to baptism though it should be granted which is not that our baptism succeeds their circumcision and seals the covenant of grace as theirs did that made with Abraham This mixture of the Covenant and the inference thence that Circumcision did not belong to all believers and their children but as in Abrahams family is observed by Mr. Allen and Mr. Sheppard in their Defence of the Answer to the nine Positions chap. 8. and because their words are apposite to my purpose though otherwise applied by them I shall recite them Now that we hold the right proportion in the persons may appear first in that as was granted Circumcision sealed the entrance into the Covenant but this Covenant was not simply and onely the Covenant of grace but that whole Covenant that was made with Abraham whereby on Gods part they were assured of many special blessings whereof Lot and others not in this Covenant with Abraham were not capable and whereby Abraham and his seed and family were bound for their part to be a people to God and to observe this sign of the Covenant which others in the Covenant of grace were not bound to Secondly as is granted it was Abraham and his houshold and the seed of believing Jews that were to be circumcised and therefore not visible believers as such for then Lot had been included so by right proportion not all visible believers as such but such as with Abraham and his family are in visible Covenant to be the people of God according to the institution of Churches when and to which the seal of Baptism is given and therefore as all family-churches but Abrahams being in a new form of a Church were excluded so much more such aâ— are in no visible constituted Church at all In which it is expresly yielded that the Covenant with Abraham was mixt in my sense that Circumcision did not belong to all visibly in the Covenant of grace that it belonged peculiarly to the Church in Abrahams family that Baptism follows the Christian Church constitution which sure is much different from the Jewish and therefore not the Covenant made with Abraham But Mr. M. seems to be sensible of this and endeavours to pâ—event it in that which follows But saith he the first doth almost recall it wherein you charge me to carry the narration of the Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. as if it did onely contain the Covenant of grace in Christ whereas it is apparent say you out of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporal benefits the multiplying of Abrahams seed possession of Canaan the birth of Isaac besides the spiritual blessings To which I reply I meant so indeed and so I plainly expressed my self that all the difference betwixt the Covenant then made with Abraham and the Covenant made with us lies onely in the manner of administration of the Covenant and not in the Covenant it self The Covenant it self in the substance of it holds out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us Answer By mixt Covenant I mean a Covenant consisting of some temporal blessings proper onely to Abrahams natural posterity and some spiritual blessings common with him to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles And I say those promises of temporal blessings were of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham that they cannot in any fit sense be called the manner of the administration of the Covenant that the Covenant it self in the substance doth not hold out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to them and to us And all these things I thus prove 1. Those promises were of the substance of the Covenant which are in Scripture called the Covenant it self without mention of the spiritual promises but this is true of the promise of the Land of Canaan c. Psalm 105.8 9 10 11. Nehem. 9.8 Gen. 26.3 28.3 4 13 14. 1 Chron. 16.15 16 17 18 c. In which places the Text expresly saith God made a Covenant with Abraham and then recites the Covenant that it was to give the Land of the Canaanites c. which were temporal mercies not now promised or performed to us Ergo To deny those promises to be of the substance of the Covenant and to call them administrations which the Scripture calls the Covenant it self so often if it be not to thwart the Scripture sure it is unwarrantably to alter its expressions God himself so expresly calling the giving of Canaan his Covenant Exod. 5.45.8 refutes this conceit 2. Those promises are of the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham which are integral parts of the Covenant But those promises of temporal blessings are integral parts of the Covenant made with Abraham Ergo the major is in it self manifest for the Covenant is nothing but a promise or an aggregate of promises and so if a Covenant have any substance in it it must be the integral parts The minor is apparant from the very words Gen. 17.4 c. where God having in general terms told Abraham My Covenant is with thee he expresseth to the 9. verse wherein his Covenant was with him and that is set down in those peculiar blessings to Abrahams natural posterity Verse 6.8 3. The promise of Canaan can be called no other way the administration of the Covenant of grace than in that in the hidden sense under that promise spiritual good was intended to be shadowed But this very thing shews that the promise of an earthly inheritance was in the first place thereby intended to Abrahams natural posterity and the other onely as an additament or appendix to the promise in its first meaning Now then if the promise of Canaan in the first sense be not of the substance of the Covenant neither is the promise onely implied mysteriously in the more hidden sense which is but an appendix to it of the substance of the Covenant 4. The Covenant made with Abraham holds not out the same mercies both spiritual and temporal to Abrahams natural posterity and to us Ergo there is more difference than in the administration The Antecedent is apparant for the promise of the Land of Canaan the birth of Isaac Christ to come of him according to the flesh c. are not made to us Ergo But Mr. M. thinks to prevent this by telling us Godliness having all the promises both of this life and that which is to
the visible Church and partake of them who are not elect nor true believers But none but elect persons have the promises of the new Covenant made to them none but an elect person hath the promise that God will write his Laws in his heart be his God c. And therefore none but such in truth are in the covenant of grace though others may be in shew in it and accounted so by us Mr. Josiah Church in his Book forenamed pag. 41. interposeth thus 1. Spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant but not a mixt Evangelical Covenant for a mixt Gospel Covenant is a Covenant partly of works and partly of grace and the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was not mixed after that manner for the Law was not given untill four hunâ—red and thirty years after iâ— and then it was not mixed with it but onely annexed to it Gal. 3.17 Answer Mr. Church his Confession that spiritual and temporal promises may be said to make a mixt Covenant is as much as I need to justifie my speech Exercit. pag 2. who did not call the Covenant made with Abraham mixt in any other sense But saith he â— the difference was onely in the dispensation and not in the substance of the Covenant the Covenant of which Circumcision was the initial Sacrament was as pâ—rely Evangelical as this whereof Baptism is the initial Sacrament for the Gospel is said to be preached unto them as well as to us and the temporal promises were Evangelical and belonged to believers as such for because of unbelief many obtained them not Heb. 3.19 Also there are temporal promises in this dispensation and the people of God have Christ and all other things by the same charter Matth. 5.5 6.33 Rom. 9.32 Ezek. 36.25 30. Answer If there were difference in the promises there was difference in the substance of the Covenant made with Abraham and ours It is proved from Gal. 3.8 that the covenant made with Abraham was Evangelical but not purely Evangelical It is not true that the temporal promises Gen. 17.4 5 6 7 8. belonged to believers as such For though many through unbelief entered not into Câ—naan Heb. 3.19 yet neither all nor onely believers entered in The Gospel was preached to them as well as to us Heb. 4.2 but not either by so purely Evangelical a covenant nor in so perspicuous a way We have temporal promises now but not the same nor by the same charter As for what he adds that the promises sealed in the former dispensation were principally spiritual I grant it but deny it any absurdity to say that no promise was sealed to many circumcised infants that their souls were not profited nor any benefit to them by circumcision though there was profit by it attainable and attained by many more than which to the present purpose is not gathered from Rom 2.1 2. I return to Mr. M. I take his grants pag. 99. That Circumcision was comprehended in his c. as belonging to the manner of administration af the Covenant together with sacrificeâ— and that the Covenant of grace was administred by sacrifices and other types before Circumcision was instituted and so blot out my second exception against his first conclusion onely it is to be observed that pag. 187. he doth cross himself For whereas here he grants it to belong to the manner of administration not to the substance of the covenant there he will have it to belong to the substance of the Covenant not as a part of it but as a means of applying it And this is in effect all one as in his language to say it belongs not to the substance of the covenant for of it onely are the parts but to the administration For how doth it administer it but as a means of applying it But my third Exception requires more reviewing Mr. M. in his Sermon pag. 14. had mentioned besides Christ and true believers a third sort of Abrahams seed not born Jews but made Proselytes who were Abrahams seed by profession who sought justification by the works of the Law did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God and alleged â—al 4 29. for it Against this I excepted 1. that I thought he could not shew where in Scripture such are called Abrahams seed To this he replies 1. That he named not Proselytes to add any strength to the argument it had been enough for his purpose to have said Some in the Church of the Jews were visible members yet not inwardly godly and these were called Abraham's seed as well as others Answ. I should have yielded to call such if they were Jews by birth or nature Abrahams seed but not so of any Proselyte and so Mr. M. had not his purpose of applying the term Abrahams seed to Gentiles who were believers onely in profession much less to Gentiles who did not so much as profess faith in Christ but sought righteousness by the works of the Law 2. He saith He never expected to have met with a quarrel for calling them who joyned to the Church by that cowmon name whereby the Church-members were called viz. the seed of Abraham or the children of Israel Answer There was no quarrel in my words but if Mr. M. did not expect that his sayings in that Sermon would be sifted to the bran it was his oversight They that doubted of the divine warrant of Paedobaptism had very great cause to discuss that Sermon being preached and printed at that time by such a man and taken to be the sense of the Assembly of Divines then â—itting at Westminster He says The seed of Abraham or the children of Israel were the common name by which Church-members joyned to the Church of Israel were called but he proves it not and till he do prove it I reject it 3. Saith he And could no place of Scripture be produced where Proselytes are expresly called by this name the matter were noâ— Tanti Answer It would follow then that the promise Gen. 17.7 of being God to Abraham 's seed is not meant of Gentile Proselytes who were onely by profession Gods people not in reality much less of their natural seed and this would make most of the infants baptized unbaptizable by Paedobaptists own pâ—inciples for sure the do not take the natural infant children of them that are not Abrahams seed to be in the covenant Gen. 17.7 and therefore must confess them unbaptized 4. Saith he But if it were a thing of any mâ—menâ— it would be no hard matter to produce evidence sufficient to prove that Proselytes were called Israelites and the seed of Abraham as Acts 2.10 22. compared Acts 13.26 compared with v. 43. but I forbear Ans. Of what moment it is hath been said I think it would be a very hard matter out of those Texts to prove any Proselytes much less such as were onely visible Church-members of the Jews seeking justification by works not
Ishmael according to the meaning Rom. 9.8 as fleshly seed is called from natural generation simply considered but not as Gal. 4.23 it is meant of fleshly seed called so from natural generation in some respect to wit as begotten in a baser way The second consideration of Mr. Sidenham is this The Covenant was administred to all Abrahams natural and fleshly children as if they had been spiritual and before they knew what faith was or could actually profess Abrahams faith If he mean by the Covenant onely Circumcision I grant it of all Abrahams natural male children if he mean the covenant of grace which is Evangelical though I deny not that it was administred by the mediation of Christ and the work of the Spirit to many elect infants afore believing yet I deny that it ever was or shall be administred to any but the elect of God who have the denomination of Abrahams spiritual seed For I know not how the Covenant which promiseth remission of sins justification regeneration adoption eternal life is said to be administred but by giving these which are given onely to the elect not to Abrahams meer natural or fleshly seed Meer outward Ordidances and outward gifts and privileges as they are not promised in the Gospel-covenant which we call the covenant of grace either as made to Abraham or confirmed by Christs bloud so neither are they administrations of it but arise from Gods command or providence without the Covenant as Evangelical His third consideration is It 's no contradiction in different respects to be a seed of the flesh by natural generation and a childe under the same promise made with the parent for they both agreed in Abraham 's case which I grant if meant of Isaac and Jacob and such other Heirs of the promise as the Scriptures term them But I reject that which follows that none was a childe of promise but as he came of Abraham 's flesh for believing Gentiles are children of the promise though they come not of Abrahams flesh yea it is not onely true to the contrary but expresly avowed Rom. 9.8 That none are children of the promise as they come of Abraham 's flesh Nor is it true that as he came from Abraham 's flesh so every one had the seal of Gods Covenant on his flesh for this is not true of males under eight days old or females and therefore this inference is vain Thus a spiritual promise was made with Abraham and his carnal seed His fourth consideration is There was no distinction of Abraham 's fleshly seed and his spiritual seed in the Old Testament but all comprehended under the same Covenant untill they degenerated from Abraham 's faith and proved themselves to be meer carnal and rejected the promise But this is manifestly false Esau was Abrahams fleshly seed but never his spiritual seed The Apostle determines Rom 9.11 afore he had done good or evil he was rejected and with the Apostle a childe of the promise and an elect person are the same No man is Abrahams spiritual seed but an elect person or true believer Scripture makes none else his seed spiritual Rom. 4.12 16. 9.7 8. Gal. 3.29 John 8.39 This very Authour makes the distinctions of fleshly and spiritual believing and natural taken out of Rom. 9.7 8 Gal. 4.23 3.16 most true And if a person may be Abrahams spiritual seed a while then the degenerate the elect and true believers may fall away finally and totally and if they that be Abrahams fleshly seed be under the same covenant with the spiritual till they degenerate then a person may be in the covenant of grace and be meerly carnal having not the Spirit of God then a man may be in the covenant of grace and not abide in it then the covenant of grace may be defective mutable and if there be no distinction of Abrahams fleshly seed and his spiritual in the Old Testament untill they rejected the promise then there is no distinction of elect and reprobate till in time they embrace or reject the promise contrary to Rom. 9.11 He that holds this position must become an Arminian His fifth is There is a carnal and spiritual seed of Abraham even under the New Testament as our Opposites must acknowledg as well as Infants so are the most visible Professours which they baptize which may have no grace and many prove carnal indeed through the predominancy of their lusts and corruptions Answer It is ackdowledged that there is a carnal seed of Abraham under the New Testament in the Jewish Nation but visible Professours of the Gentiles which are baptized although they be many of them carnal men and so are many of the congregational Churches not baptized yet they cannot be termed the carnal seed of Abraham being not his seed either by nature or by believing as he did His sixth is when there is mention of Abraham 's carnal seed in oppâ—sition to spiritual seed it cannot be meant primarily or solely of those that descended from Abraham 's flesh for then Isaac and Jacob were the carnal seed yea Christ himself who as concerning the flesh came of Abraham it must be therefore of those of Abraham 's seed which degenerated and slighted the Covenant of the Gospel and these were properly the carnal seed Answer The distinction of Abrahams carnal and spiritual seed is as the distinction of the Church into visible and invisible in which the members may agree to the same persons though on the other side also they may not agree The same persons may be of the Church visible and invisible and yet some persons may be of the Church visible who are not of the invisible and some of the invisible who are not of the invisible so some are Abrahams carnal seed who are also his spiritual as Isaac Jacob Christ some â—re his spiritual seed but not his carnal as Gentile believers some his carnal seed but not his spiritual as unbelieving Jews some neither his carnal nor spiritual seed as unsound Professours of faith of the Gentiles who are no way Abrahams seed nor ever called his carnal seed in Scripture There are but two places I know in which the term of Abrahams fleshly seed or childe is used Rom. 9.8 Gal. 4.23 in both which is meant of his seed by natural generation though in the later in a worse way In the former way those that embraced the Covenant without degenerating from Abrahams faith being descended from Abraham by natural generation are as properly termed Abrahams carnal seed as those Israelites that did backslide I grant Abraham was a natural father to many of thâ—se to whom he was a spiritual father as to Isaac and Jacob and the godly of their posterity but not to all He was a spiritual father to believing Galatians though not a natural Gal. 3.29 But what Mr. Sidenham saith That all to whom Abraham was a natural father were under the Covenant and had the seal untill they rejected themselves
made to infer salvation and Zaccheus in that he was the son of Abraham proved to be one that the son of man came to seek and save which can agree onely to elect persons therefore the term seed of Abraham equipollent to son of Abraham as Evangelically such notes onely elect persons or true believers Piscat Analys Luc. 19.9 Electio Dei patris significatur v. 9. his verbis eo quod ipse quoque filius Abrahae est ubi intelligitur non simpliciter filius secundum carnem sed filius secumdum promissionem Dei qua promiserat ipsum futurum patrem credentium schol filius Abrahae nempe filius secundum promissionem id est electus vide Rom. 9. v. 7. and 8. New Annot on Luke 19.9 Is the son of Abraham to be a son of Abraham is to be chosen freely Rom. 9.8 To walk in the steps and faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 12. And generally to do the good works of Abraham John 8.39 Whereby we moy be assured of Election to eternal life Rom. 8.29 30. 2 Pet. 1.10 Trap com in Luke 19.9 He also is a son of Abraham that is freely elected Rom. 9. A follower of Abrahams faith Rom. 4.12 And a doer of his works John 8.39 3. It is said by our Lord Christ John 8.39 If ye were Abrahams children ye would do the works of Abraham he granted them ver 37. To be Abrahams seed by nature but not the seed of Abraham according to the Covenant Evangelical because their practise was unlike Abrahams Whence I inferre they Onely Evangellically are Abrahams children or seed even of those who descended from Abraham by generation who are like unto Abraham in their Actions But such onely are true believers or elect persons therefore true believers or elect persons onely are Abrahams children or seed Evangelical Diodati Annot. on John 8.39 children namely true and lawfull imitators â—f Abrahams faith Father of all believers wherein consists the true meaning of this name of children of Abraham Rom. 4.16 and 9.6 7. Gal. 3.7 4. With our Lord Christs words accord the words of Paul who doth plainly determine that the seed of Abraham to whom the promise Gen. 17.7 That God would be the God of Abrahams seed as it was Eavngelical belongs are believers or elect persons and no other Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Is so plain to prove it that the very reading the words is enough to clear it to a heedfull reader For therein the Apostle doth shew how the promises Gen. 17.7 Are true of the Gentiles as well as the Jewes in that Abraham is considered therein as the father of believers v. 11. And the father of circumcision that is as Beza of the circumcised yet not a father to all of them nor to them onely but to those circumcised ones onely and with them to all other that believe or walk in the steps of that faith which our father of us believing Gentiles Abraham had being yet uncircumcised v. 11.12 Now if Abraham be considered in the promises as Evangelical onely as the Father of believers of either sort circumcised or uncircumcised then the seed of Abraham are onely believers or elect persons And to this purpose doth Master Dickson paraphrase the words thus Abraham received from God the sign of circumcision to seal the Covenant of grace or the righteousness of faith which â—e had uncircumcised to that end that he might be father of uncircumcised believers and in like manner of circumcised to wit who are both sons of the flesh and sons of the faith of Abraham Therefore the righteousness of faith is common to the circumcised and uncircumcised believers or them that follow the steps of the faith of Abraham not yet circumcised But Abraham is said to be the father of believers in that he is the first eminent example of faith and of righteousness imputed by faith and by his example an Author to all that they may believe Beza in his note on Rom. 4.12 For as speaking of the uncircumcised he said not simply that Abraham was the father of them all but of them onely who should believe he also hath deservedly kept the same distinction in the Jewes because as I said before it is not simply the Apostles purpose to teach Abraham to be the father of both the uncircumcised and the circumcised but also especially by what reason he is the father of both which is his scope For to be a child of Abraham before God and to be justifyed by faith cohere Again v. 13. shewes the same For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law but through the righteousness of faith I shall use the words of the same Authors Dickson thus paraphraseth v. 13. He proves Abraham to be Father not but of believers onely uncircumcised alike and circumcised and together addes a third argument The promise made to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the land of Canaan in time and of the world and heaven in truth came not to him by the law or by the condition of works but happened to him by an absolute promise to him already justified by faith and having the righteousness of faith Therefore his sons are not they which are of the law seeking to wit righteousness by works but they onely who are by faith seeking righteousness by faith that is all and onely believers circumcised alike and uncircumcised to whom equally the common righteousness of faith and the inheritance is promised The argument is of force for if father Abraham be not the heir of the world nor have righteousness but by faith certainly none are his sons but believers who have righteousness by faith and by righteousness the inheritance Beza Annot. ad Rom. 4.13 But in these words there is a continuation of the former conclusion the application of the example of Abraham neither to the circumcised neither to the uncircumcised otherwise not availing unless two things be shewed to wit that God made that Covenant not with Abraham alone but with his heirs also and that under the name of his posterity any who shall believe that covenant like Abraham are understood Therefore Paul conjoynes the promises of God made to Abraham as it were into one body and when he had taught all believers whether cicrumcised or uncircumcised to be Abrahams sons he verily deservedly calls Abraham the heir of the world by the term world understanding all Nations and therein following the Lords stâ—ps For when the Lord had said to Abraham that he would be the God of him and his seed after he expounded what he understood by the term seed to wit all the nations of the earth when he said that it should be that in him he would vouchsafe them all his grace The next v. also confirms it v. 14. For if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void and the promise made of none effect
of them For in the Evangelical sense to whom God promiseth to be God he promiseth to justifie them to regenerate them to raise them up to eternall life as appears by our Saviours own reasoning Luke 20.37 38. where he infers from Gods avouching himselfe to be the God of Abraham his living to God rising from the dead to eternal life by the Apostles inference Rom. 4.16 from thence that righteousness is by faith Rom. 9.7 8. determining them to be elect people of God to whom he hath promised to be God Heb. 8 10 c. But God doth not promise to every believers child to justifie regenerate and raise him to eternal life for if he did promise it he would perform it to say he makes a promise to any and to say they have not the efficacie of it is to make God a lyar whereas many children of believers are never justified regenerated nor shall be raised to eternall life He performs it to all true believers and elect persons and to none other therefore none others are meant there by Abrahams seed in the Evangelical sense 8 Lastly the words of John Baptist Matth 3.9 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadduces come to his baptism saying to them And think not so say within your selves We have Abraham to our Father for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham do evince â— that repenting and believing persons though raised by God of stones without naturall generation are the children of Abraham to whom the promise is made Gen. 17.7 2. That it was not their naturall descent from Abraham without repentance and Gospel faith which did entitle them to Gods favour or to his baptism and therefore it follows thence that the children of Abraham to whom the promise is Gen 17.7 are onely the elect or true believers 3. That to be the child of a believer is not a sufficient title to Gods favour or baptism To this purpose Paraeus Com. in Matth. 3.9 He teacheth also that the promises of God are not tied to fleshly birth but pertain only to believing spiritual posterity For they are not sons of Abraham who according to the flesh are of Abraham but who are according to the spirit Piscat Sch. in Matâ—h 3.9 His sentence is although ye come from Abraham according to the flesh yet ye are not therfore those sons of Abraham to whom pertains the promise of eternall life made to Abraham and his seed For this belongs to them who imitate Abrahams faith and piety Diodati Annot. on Matth. 3 9. And think not do not dally with your selves to think that because you are issued from Abraham according to the flesh you are in Gods favour and free from his judgement for with him the imitation of Abrahams faith and piety is the onâ—ly thing which demonstrates and causeth to be the children of Abraham and not the corporall generation Rom 4.12 Now such children may be brought forth of all Nations yea and out of these stones Neither do you perswade your selves that by your perdition Gods people shall perish for Gods people shall always subsist in these spiritual children of Abraham towards whom Gods covenant and promises shall be verified This then is the constant Doctrine of the New Testament that the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall is made onely to the elect and true believers that they onely are Abrahams seed spirituall and so onely in the covenant of grace by Gods promise and therefore if it be true that they onely who are in covenant which Paedobaptists say when they say the Seal follows the Covenant are to be baptized not any one because he is the child of a believer but the elect and true believers are to be baptized and so their own argument for Infant-baptism overthroweth it SECT XXIX The Allegation of Rom. 9.6 7 8 Matth. 3.7 8 9. to prove that the seed to which the promise Gen. 17.7 as Evangelicall belongs are true believers or the elect onely is vindicated from Mr. Blakes Answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. and Mr. Sidenhams Exercit. ch 6. TO my Allegation of Rom 9.6 7 8. in my Examen part 3. sect 4. Mr. Blake undertakes to give an answer Vindic. Foed ch 36. And first having belied me as borrowing from Stapleton the Jesuit and learning to a â—air to follow him though to my remembrance I never read that passage in him which he allegeth nor made any use of his exposition of the Epistle to the Romans or any other of his works in that Book of mine he proceeds thus in his scoffing calumniating fashion like a Satyrist rather than a Disputant We have drunk up the Protestants poyson and Mr. T. his great care is to preserve his party by the Jesuits Antidoâ—â— be is wholly beholding to them for the Receipt Which is Mr. Blakes manifest calumny as the quotations in my Examen part 3 sect 4. in which he might see that I received it from the most eminent Protestants and alleged but one Papist and he no Jesuit but one of the better note and since the quotations in the foregoing Section do fully prove and it were easie to produce treble the number if need were But I find it in vain to endeavour the satisâ—ying of such eager and through prejudice selfe-blinding Antagonists as Mr. Blake is I could if I liked such Arts as Mr. Blake useth tell Mr Blake he borrows from the Jesuit Bellarmin who against Peter Martyr saying the promise Gen. 17.7 is not universall concerning the children of beleivers but hath place onely in the predestinate replies This is said without proof for the words of the Scripture are absolute nor is there any mention of predestination in that whole chapter But Mr Blake promiseth me square dealing in the examining my Argument and sets down my words at length and then in stead of answering it puts divers Quaere's to me yeelding first to me that the Text Gen. 17.7 was in that place Rom. 9.6 7 8 brought into question by the Apostle 1 saith he How Bain and Ameâ— come to the name of Remonstrants I had thought they had been on the party that are called Contra-remonstrants Answer And so aâ—so did I and therefore called them the answerers of Arminius and the cited Remonstrants not Remonstrants as Mr. Blake not heeding my words suggests as one not willing to omit any thing whether right or wrong which may render me odious or contemptible 2. saith he Where it appears that Arminius conceived that the Covenant there spoken to was the word of the Law and not of Promise I am sure in his Analysis on this chapter to the Romans of which Mr. T. should not be ignorant little lesse than vapouring of his examination of it in Oxford Apolog. page 131. he spake in another manner even in Mr. T. his own Dialect as though the ones Comment had been spit out of the mouth of the other The sons of the flesh with
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
of grace in the judgement of charity and that baptism seals regeneration c. not conferred but to be conferred Dr. Th Goodwin that they are to be judged in the covenant of grace by parcels though not all in the lump yet all make the promise I will be the God of thy seed applied to infants of believersâ— contain the promise of saving grace and therefore I had great reason to conceive Mr. M. so meant his second conclusion As for the two cases he puts I neither grant all the Infants of the Jewes nor visible Christian professors adult had all saving graces who were circumcised or rightly baptized by the Apostles nor do I say they were sealed with the seal of the covenant it 's the Pedobaptists expression not mine except where I use the term to express their mind nor do I count it an absurdity to say the seal was and is to be put to a blank that is that those should be baptized to whom the promise of saving grace is not made when I speak after mine own mind But in the place of my Examen pag. 46. in which I alleged that as an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank it was not because I took it so to be but because the Paedobaptists so count it as Mr. Calvins words before recited shew SECT XXXI Of the novelty and vanity of Mr. Marshals and others doctrine about Sacraments being seals of the covenant and the severall sealings of them BUt Mr. M. desires me a little to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and he teâ—s me that in every Sacrament the truth of the Covenant in it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen Iesus Christ became a Minister of the Circumcision to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers and so to every one who is admitted to partake of baptism according to the rule which God hath given to his Church to administer the Sacrament there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel that they are all true in Christ and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises this is sealed absolutely in Bapiism Answer Mr M. would have me to consider the nature of a Sacrament in what sense it is a seal and I am very willing so to do as knowing that as Mr. M. imagines that I am mislead for want of considering thereof so I am sure Mr. M. and other Paedobaptists are both mistaken and do abuse others in this point by reason of their inconsideratenass or superficial consideration of this thing The word Sacrament is a Latin word in profane Authors signifying an oath made by a Souldier to his Generall in Ecclesiastick Writers it is applied to all the mysteries of religion and it is used most by the African Writers Tertullian Augustine c. as the word Mystery is by the Greeks Chrysostome Cyril c. Chamier Paustrat Cath tom 4. l. 4. c. 4. Sect. 14. Saepe jam dictum latissimam fuisse olim Saramenti significationem serò tandem contractam in angustos istos terminos quos hodie vix migrat quod diligenter attendendum Certè sacramenti definitionem nullam est invenire ante Augustinum qui suo exemplo posteris praiit deinde Augustini definitione c. Whence I inferre that as the term Sacrament so the definition of a Sacrament is but a novelty and possibly the great contentions about the number of the Sacraments some making seven some three most Protestants two onely would be lessened if moderate learned men had the handling of it I confesse that sundry Texts of Scripture do plainly shew the two rites of Baptism and the Lords Supper to be the chief rites of the Church as 1 Cor. 10 1 2 3 4. 12 13. Eph. 4 5. Mark 16.16 1 Cor. 10.16 17. 11.23 c. Yet that the Scripture either calls these Sacraments or sets down one generall nature of them in a certain definition of them cannot be demonstrated They are certain rites appointed for certain vses according to certain rules but such a nature or essence genericall as distinguisheth them from all other rites as laying on of hands c. denied to be Sacraments I find not in Scripture Divines elder and later have framed their definitions according to their own conceits After Augustines time that definition was commonly received in Schools That a Sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace yet the Ancients did rent such speeches as occasioned the opinion commonly received in Schools afore the reformation by Luther and Zuinglius that they did conferre gratiam ex opere operato give grace by the â—aâ—e outward use of them Zuinglius denying them to be any more than signs the Lutherans denying that they give grace by the bare use of them without the concurrence of faith to which the Lutherans ascribe all the efficacie the Papists object the baptizing of infants who did not believe used by them all whereupon the opposers of infant-baptisme falsly termed Anabaptists proved infant-baptism inconsistent with their own doctrine I wil set down Mr. Bedfords words in his Epistle to Mr. Baxter printed in the Friendly Accommodation between them pag. 352. The Anabaptists took occasion from that position of Luther No Faith no Baptism Coetaneous with him was Zuinglius and others who to overthrow the reall presence insisted upon it â—hat Sacraments were but signs for representation and when that doctrin was once broached the Anabaptists could easily make their advantage of it To answer whom the Lutherans maintain that by baptism or before they are made believers as the words of the Lutherans in the Conference at Montâ—elgard cited by me in my Examen part 3. sect 15 p. 143. shew Osiander epist. Histor. Eccl. Cent. 26. l. 2. c. 68. pag· 449. Cum autem baptismus â—it lavacrum regenerationis teste Paulo sentimus nos Deum dare fidem infantibus vel ante baptismum ad preces parentum Ecclesiae vel in ipso actu baptismi regenerationis quae siâ—e fide esse non potest And to this opinion did many in England warp when the face of the Church of England became ceremonious and tended to symbolizing with the Lutheran Protestants or with the more moderate not Jesuited Papists in the time of the late Prelates potency as may be seen by the passages cited by me in Examen part 3â— Sect. 15. pag. 143. and by the printed writings of Dr. Davenant Dr. Ward Mr Thomas Bedford which have been refuted by Mr. Gataker and Mr. Baxter nor is it likely but still the same mind is in Mr. Bedford notwithstanding the late Synectism or rather clawing of one another which hath been between him and Mr. Baxter in their painted Frindly Accommodation In which Mr. Cranfords Epistle hath these words to Mr. Bedford Brother you know my mind that I conceive the ground of Anabaptisme to have been the erroneus Doctrine
this doth not prove this is the Genus of Sacraments much less of all Sacraments Nor doth it any whit justifie the determining of doubts of conscience and so binding duties on mens consciences concerning meer positive rites without any institution of Christ or Apostolicall example meerly from this devised term The Seal of the Covenant and malâ—ing it so necessary to be acknowledged that it is pressed on persons to be admitted to the Lords Supper as it were a necessary Article of Faith 2. This term Seal of the Covenant applied to these Sacraments as being of their nature is so farre as my reading and memory reach but a novell term not used till the 16. Century in that not used among the learned Romanists and Lutherans at least not frequently I grant the Ancients say Men are sealed by baptism and sometimes by laying on of hands or anointing after baptism And this sealing is attributed to infant baptism by Nazianzen in his fortieth Oration But this sealing was not a confirmation of the covenant of grace but a confirmation of their faith received in Baptism The ancient Greeks call it the seal of Faith as the Latins call it the seal of Repentance and the Sacrament of Faith in respect of the profession of Faith as Grotius Annot. on Mat. 28.19 observes when he saith And such were the Interrogations of faith either in the first times or those next the first in respect of which by Basil and others it is called the seal of faith sealing of faith of repentance by Tertul. in his book of Repentance and this sealing was not to assure a promise but to strengthen and keep their faith or vertues Whence as Mr. Gataker observes in his Strictures on Dr. Davenants Epistle pag. 44 45. they accounted Baptism to some not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a pardoning of sins but a seal of vertues and where Nazianzen calls â—t a Seal he expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seal as keeping and noting dominion No where do I find any of them use the term Seal of the covenant of grace applied either to Sacraments in generall or to baptism in special 3. But were the use of the term Seal of the covenant of grace in the Scripture or the writings of the Ancients yet it is against Logick to define a Sacrament by a Seal of the covenant as the genus and so to make it of its essence For it is a rule in Logick Definitio non fit ex verbis metaphoricis Scheibler Top. cap. 30 num 126. Ita Aristot Topic. lib. 2. c. 2. sect 4. Keckerm Syst. Logic lib. 1. sect cap. 8. Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every translated speech is doubtfull till reduced to proper for it may have divers senses Besides metaphors or borrowed speeches may be many as in this point we may call a Sacrament a Pledge as in the Common Prayer Book Catechism or a pawn earnest as well as a seal Chamier Paust Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 9. sect 10. You have also the similitude of a pledge somewhat divers from Seals but nevertheless tending to the same which we also doe most willingly use And if we should define a Sacrament by a pledge and from that metaphor infer that an infant must contract afore it receive the Sacrament as a pledge we might do it with as good reason as they who infer they are to be sealed because the seal followes the covenant Well doth Chamier call a Seal a Similitude which cannot shew what a Sacrament is but what it is like and therefore all metaphors are unfit to shew the quidâ—â—tative conceit of a thing nor are to be used in definitions except there be want of proper terms of which there is not in this case Now to define a Sacrament by a Seale of the covenant is to define it by a metaphor neither Baptism nor the Lords Supper are Seals in proper acceptation they make no visible figure or impression on the body therefore to use the term thus is an abuse much more when positions and duties are urged on mens consciences from it I will subjoyn Mr. Baxters words in his Apologie against Mr Blake Sect. 64. pag 11. Some sober men no way inclined to Anabaptism do think that we ought not to call the Sacraments Seals as being a thing not to be proved from the word for all Rom. 4. But I am not of their mind yet I think it is a Metaphor and to make it the subject of tedious disputations and to lay too great a stress upon a metaphoricall notion is the way not to edifie but to lose our selves Lastly were all this yielded to Mr M. that the term Seal of the covenant were the language of the Scripture and Ancients and fit enough to express the generall nature of Sacraments yet I conceive it of little moment to the ends to which it is applied For what is it to seal and not to confer grace but onely to assure And so the use of it is to represent to the mind as a morall instrument But that is not done to infants who are not naturally capable to understand the meaning therefore this term Seal of the covenant beyond sign of grace doth not take away the objection of Papists Lutherans or Anti-paedobaptists That without giving grace or faith by baptism it is in vain or without effect to baptize infants And in like manner the deriving from it Paedobaptism is very frivolous These things will appear by considering what Mr M. and others say of the covenant which they say is sealed and of the sealing there being little agreement among Paedobaptists whether the inward or outward covenant the absolute or conditionall be sealed whether the sealing be absolute or conditionall to the Major Minor or Conclusion I will examine what I find said by Mr M. First whose words are commended by Mr. Pryâ—â—â— in his Suspension suspended pag. 19 c. â—e saith In every Sacrament the truth of the covenant it self and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea and Amen and this is sealed absolutely in baptism to all that partake of it But 1. there 's no Scripture that saith so That Rom. 5 8. is impertinent For Christ is not called the Minister of Circumcision because he did administer circumcision to others that were not true he circumcised none but he was a circumcised Minister for the truth he was of the circumcision that is a Jew not a Gentile Nor is it said his circumcision was to confirm the promises of the Fathers that they were true but that therefore he was a circumcised Minister for the truth of God that the promises of the Fathers might be confirmed by his ministring the truth of God in his preaching or in his accomplishment of what the promises foretold 2. Nor do I know any act in baptism that hath any aptnesse of it self or by institution to seal this position that the covenant of grace and
and uncertainty among them To which I conceive my self the more ingaged because some words of mine in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. gave some overture to Mr M. and after to Mr Bl. and Mr B. to except much against me about this point Two things which I said in that passage it seems are not relished one that I said that God seals not to every one that is baptized but onely to true believers the other that making Gods promise in the covenant of grace conditional in this sense that persons after agnize the covenant and that to speak of it so as if it were common to the elect and reprobates and conditionall in this sense as if God left it to mens liberty to whom he had sealed to agnâ—ze or recognize that sealing or to free themselves if they please and so nullifie all yet so as to afford them a while the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him â—s symbolizing with Arminians To this Mr M. replied but little yet what he saith in his Defence pag. 236 I shall briefly answer First saith he Was not Circumcision Gods sign and seal which by his own appointment was applied to all the Jewes and proselytes and their children Ans. Circumcision was appointed by God to be applied to all the Jews proselytes and their children being males of eight dayes old and was by his institution a sign of the covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. Abrahams own circumcision in his own person was a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumâ—ised but that God did by Circumcision seal â—o every one the righteousness of faith who was rightly circumcised I find not nor if I did should I think it were any thing to prove that God seals the righteousness of faith to every one that is baptized rightly sith I doe not take circumcision and baptism to be all one or to have the same use or that baptism seals in the same manner as circumcision Mr. M. adds Did it ingage God absolutely to every one of them to write his law in their hearts c. Answer No. And are not the Sacraments Signa conditionalia conditionall signes and Seals Answer I conceive baptism according to Christs institution to be a sign of the faith of the baptized and so it is a sign absolute and not conditionall and because the object of that faith is Christ dead and risen again whereby we are justified and baptisme as fitted to mind the baptized of Christs death but all and resurrection Rom. 6.2 3 4. Col. 2.12 it is in its nature that is in its right use apt to seal that is to assure justification and salvation 1 Pet. 3.21 and so may be termed in its nature a seal aptitudinall but yet it seals actually to none but those who truly believe which it doth absolutely in respect of justification and coditionally in respect of glorification which is not yet attained nor to be attained but upon conditition of perseverance yet it doth not seal that as an uncertain thing because conditionall for even the condition also is assured by vertue of the death of Christ confirming the covenant of grace or the New Testament in his blood But when I say these things are actually assured by baptism I do not conceive they are actually sealed by God not to the true believer without the inward testimony or seal of the spirit without which God never sealed actually by his word or Sacraments these promises of the covenant of grace or the persons interest in them although both the word of God the oath of God the death of Christ the ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper are in themselves or in their nature aptitudinall seals that is apt signs to assure them The like I say of the Lords Supper both which are alike signes and seals neither to an infant without extraordinary operation Mr M. adds And did any orthodox Divines before your self charge this to be Arminianism to say that the Gospel runs upon conditions I confesse it is Arminianism to say any thing is conditionall to God this I never assertedâ— but that the Gospel is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith will passe for orthodox doctrine when you and I are dead and gone Answer I never charged this to be Arminianism That the Gospel runs upon conditions that it is both preached and by the Sacraments sealed to us upon condition of faith according to the explication given What I count symbolizing with the Arminians I have before declared to wit Gods conditionall sealing and covenant common to elect and reprobates as Mr M. in his Sermon seemed to conceive To what I said that I did not well understand that God required of the Jewes infants to seal in their infancy I reply saith Mr M. But I hope you understand that the infants were sealed in their infancy and by this they received not only a priviledge to be accounted as belonging to Gods family but it also obliged them to the severall duties of the covenant as they grew up to be capable of performing them Answer I understand the Iewes were circumcised in their infancy but that God did seal to every circumcised infant either the truth of the promises or his interest in them or that they did in infancy seal to God I do not yet understand For though they had the priviledge mentioned yet not by vertue of Gods sealing to them and though they were obliged to the duties mentioned yet not by vertue of their sealing to God But Mr. Bl. and Mr B. are more earnest in this point and in opposition to what I said in my Examen part 4. Sect. 5. in his Answer to my Letter Mr. Bl. ch 15. asserts Sect. 1. The seals of the Sacrament are conditionall not absolute Sect. 2. The entrance into covenant and acceptation of the terms of it is common to the elect and reprobate a heart stedfast in the covenant and the mercies of the conenant are proper onely to the elect and regenerate Sect. 3. To say that the seals of the Sacraments are conditionall and that the reprobate are within the verge of the covenant as tendered in the Gospel and accepted is not to symbolize with Arminians To which I replied in my Postscript Sect. 21. concerning which Mr. Bl. in his plain Scripture proof c. pag. 224. of the first Edition saith But to these Mr. Bl. hath fully answered Mr T. though in his Apology he passeth over much and is not able to discern his meaning For my part I speak impartially according to my judgement I think there is more true worth in those two or three leaves of Mr. Blakes book in opening the nature of the covenant than in all Mr T s book that ever he wrote about baptism And pag. 222. he chargeth me with two errors in Apologie and saith of them I conceive these dangerous errors of Mr T. about the nature of
mayst love the Lord c. And his words Vindic. Foed ch 7. pag. 46. That the Sacrament doth actually seal to believers and penitent ones are answered by Mr B. Apol. against Mr Bl. sect 10. thus I perceive Mr. T. and you are more of a mind than I was aware off SECT XXXIII That it is no error as Mr Baxter calls it but a Truth That the Covenant of grace is made onely to the elect BUt that I may acquit my self of Mr. Bs charge of errors in these points I shall answer first what he saith about my fifth imagined error because as Mr. B. saith Appendix to his Aphorisms pag. 66. It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal absolutely or conditionally till you first know well what it is that they seal And here I think it needfull to set down Mr Bs words against Mr Bl. in his Apol. p. 103. Sect. 52. Arg. 17. That doctrine which signifieth an unsealed covenant for giving right to the covenant of grace is unsound But such is Mr. Blakes therefore no Scripture can be brought to prove such an outward covenant of Gods And it is against the common reason and custome of men that a second covenant should not be drawn to convey right to the seal of the first covenant seeing right to covenants seals go together and if there must be another covenant to give right to that then by the same reason there must be another to give right to that and another to that and so in infinitum To the Antecedent it is apparent that Mr. Bl. distinguisheth ex parte Dei between the outward and inward covenant It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised whereof some are inward and some outward for though he explain not himself fully yet I know no other sense that it will bear It is evident that his outward covenant hath no seal For it is a covenant de conferendis â—igillis If therefore it have a seal it is either the same which is promised or some other other I never heard of They no where tell us what is the seal of their outward covenant The same it cannot be for the same thing cannot be the materia foederis or the legacie it self or the benefit given and the seal too of that covenant whereby it is given And pag. 6â— Mr Bls common phrase is that they are in the outward covenant and what that is I cannot tell and then proves that God makes no such outward covenant From whence I inferr 1 That Mr. B. had not cause to blame me for not disdaining Mr Blakes meaning when he understands him no better 2 Nor to magnifie his writing so much in which he finds so many flawes 3. Nor to rest so much upon an imagined ground of mens right to baptism by Gods promise or covenant grant which the cheâ—fest assertors of Paedobaptism cannot well tell what it is 4. That by Mr Bs judgment there is no such outward covenant of God as Mr Bl. and other Paedobaptists infer infant-baptism from and for the inward covenant or covenant of saving grace Mr M. Mr G. and others disclaim it as made to all the infants of believers Let us view what Mr B. saith about the covenant sealed by baptism and its sealing In his Confut. of my six imagined errors plain Scripture proof c. pag. 223 he thus speaks Errorâ— Mr T. holdeth that the Covenant whereof Baptism is the seal is the absolute covenant of grace made onely to the elect Confutation Many more mistakes he utters in the way to this about the Covenant This he publickly pleaded for in his Dispute and alledged Dr. Twisse as affirming the covenant of grace to be absolute To which I then answered 1. That to thrust in mens names and words when in disputation we are enquiring what the Scripture saith was unseasonable and diverting 2. That Dr. Twisse doth constantly in all his writings affirm That the promises of remission of sin and salvation are conditionall though the promise of the grace I will take the hard heart out of their bodies c is absolute This I dare affirm as having read six of Dr Twisse his books again and again And then he adds somewhat of Dr. Twisse which I leave to others to answer as they shall see cause Answer That Baptism is the seal of the covenant is not my expression except when I speak in answer to Paedobaptists according to their mind and in what seal and manner I allow it I have said before What I said of Dr Twisse in the disputation was neither unseasonable nor diverting nor untrue The dispute was so far as I can gather from my memory and the notes I have of the dispute wheâ—her the words Deut. 29.13 did prove that God did make the covenant â—here with all that are said to enter into covenant which I â—enied and Mr. B. endeavoured to prove from the words and that he may be to thee a God and from Deut. 30.6 where he promiseth to circumcise the heart of them and of their seed which I proved could not be sith the covenant of grace is made only to the elect and it is absolute in that promise I will write my lawes in their hearts which is the same with circumcising the heart and so could not be meant of all that entred into covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12 which Mr B. since acknowledgeâ—h in his letter to Mr. Bedford when he saith thus The Text seemes plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant estate but in their adult Deut. 30. but of the elect onely and in respect of that promise the covenant of grace is absolute which I thought seasonable no way diverting from the business to confirm by Dr. Twisse his authority whose tenent Mr B. confesseth was That the promise of the first grace I will take the hard heart out of their bodies c. is absolute And to shew that I did Dr. Twisse no wrong I shall alledge some words of his which I find in his Animadversions on Corvinus his Defence of Arminius against Tilenus p. 235 Negamus Deum pacisci foedus graâ—iae cum omnibus singulis dicimus hoc fieri solum cum electis that is We deny that God makes the covenant of peace with all and each we say it to be made onely with the elect pag. 346. At foedus gratiae absolutum est quod nube testimoniorm divinorum comprobatum damus that is But the covenant of grace is absolute which also we prove by a cloud of testimonies But Mr. B. having given Dr Twisse a lash on the by falls thus on me But Mr. T. his answer to me was That the promise of saving grace is not conditional and that though some parts of the covenant be conditionall yet it is all together that is called the covenant the leading promise being not conditionall therefore the covenant is not conditionall and that it was a grosse palpable error
promise of saving benefits is made to infants not elect 12. This is proved directly from the Apostles words Rom. 9.6 7 8. which also strengthens the former argument where he concludes that the promises of God must be understood as made to them only to whom they were performed otherwise the word of God should fall which he abhorres as blasphemy But I argue further thus To them onely is the promise of saving benefits made who are children of that promise that God would be a God to them in respect of saving benefits for to be the children of the promise there is manifestly meant of those to whom the promise of being God is meant Gen. 17.7 as is proved before Sect. 28 29. which the Apostle in that chapter understands of saving benefits which I think will not be denied if it were it might be proved from v. 8 c. But the elect onely are children of the promise this is proved before Sect. 28 29 and might be proved from v. 11. Ergo. 3. I further argue from the same place If any other than the elect infants had the promise of saving benefits made to them then all the naturall seed of Abraham for no infants besides the elect had more promises of saving benefits than they But they all had not the promise of saving benefits made to them the Apostle determines that the promise was to Ishmael not Esau but onely to Isaac and Jacob That the purpose of God according to election might stand or be of him that calleth whom he will for the seed v. 11. Therefore the promise of saving benefits is made onely to elect infants To the Allegation of this text I find something said by Mr. B. in his plain Scripture proof Part. 2. chap. 1. 1. There is no strong appearance of contradiction in this to what we have taught For I willingly acknowledge that they are not therefore the children of God because they are the seed of Abraham or others that were godly but because they are the children of the promise But Mr. B. câ—ean mistakes the Apostles speech for he conceives that all the naturall seed of Abraham were yeelded to be the children of God but not because children of the flesh buâ— because children of the promise as if he granted the thing but denied the reason whereas the Apostle denies the thing it self affirming that all the seed of Abraham were not the children of God Rom. 9.7 8 and contradisting the children of the promise to the children of the flesh which were non-sense if they were the same and no distinction or opposition between them As if a man say not all natives but free-men are Citizens he supposeth all natives are not freemen and denies all natives who are not free-men to be Citizens Mr B. adds I pray you observe 1. That which the Apostle here pleadeth is That salvation was not by the Covenant tied to all Abrahams seed To which I reply This grants what I would eviâ—ce that the promise of saving benefites was not to all Abrahams seed but only to the elect of them But yet saâ—th Mr. B. he denieth not but Church-membership did for the time past belong to the generallity of them Now it is not the certain salvation but the Church-membership of Infants that we are disputing for in regard of the individuals Answer Though it be the Church-membership of infants which Paedobaptists dispute for and not the certain salvation yet they would inferre their Church-membership from that Covenant which was a Covenant of salvation as it was Evangelicall And this Mr. B. must yeild who in the words forecited against Mr. Bl. denies an outward covenant giving right to the Seals and asserts A right to Baptism as it is a benefit given directly by God from his promise or covenant Apol. against Mr Bl. p. 80 which is no other than of saving grace by which if salvation be not tied to all Abrahams seed then that covenant is not the ground of their Church-membership and right to the initiall seal and consequently not to our infants for take away the Cause the effect is removed so this text is directly against infant-baptism and Church-membership Mr. B. adds 2. The Apostle disputeth not against the salvation or Church-membership of every one of Abrahams seed for many of his seed were after this saved but against the salvation of the whole seed or posterity conjunctim But now Anabaptists dispute against the Church-membership visible of any infants Answer If the Church-membership visible of the whole seed or posterity conjunctim of Abraham be asserted as it is by Mr. B. from that covenant which the Apostle denies to belong to the whole seed or posterity conjunctim which Mr B. grants he disputeth for the Anabaptists against the imagined visible Church-membership of all infants of true believers 3. Saith Mr. B. That which the Apostle mainly drives at is that men are not therefore saved because they are Abrahams carnall seed and consequently not because they are the carnall seed of any other And I say so too with all my heart But the Apostle doth not say or mean that Abrahams seed should not be saved for they shall again be called and so all Israel shall be saved Rom. 11 But onely that they are saved not because they are his seed buâ— because they are children of the promise And so say we That the seed of the faithfull are Church-members and Disciples and subjects of Christ not properly or directly because they are their seed for so they are no better than others but because they are children of the promise God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed and having promised that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed and that he will be mercifull to them and will take thm to be a people to him and he will be to them a God and he hath pronounced them holy Isaac was Abrahams seed and Jacob his and yet not saved because his seed directly and properly yet remotely they were but because children of the promise Answer Mr. B. in his passâ—ge shewes he neither understood the Apostles scope nor answer but according to his overly manner of handling Texts perverts both I grant that from the Apostles words it followeth That men are not therefore saved because they are Abrahams seed and consequently not because they are the carnall seed of any other But it is manifest and acknowledged by all Interpreters almost I mâ—et with that the Apostles scope is to answer an objection as the words v. 6. shew That if the Jewes were rejected the word of God to Israel and Abrahams seed falls which shews that the objectors did not conceive God by covenant tied to save all Abrahams seed and Israel because he had by covenant tied himself to be a God to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 and therefore Paul did not rightly suggest Rom. 9 1 2 3. as if they should be rejected The clearing
Evangelical grace contains a promise to a Gentile believere of the external privilege of an initial seal or external â—ight to outward ordinances to them and their natural seed and accordingly saith Pag. 41 The Covenant then of the Gospel hath outward privileges of Gods Tabernacle annexed as wel as Abrahams Covenant yea in that it 's the same with it Which conclusion in this sense were manifestly false for the Lord hath of purpose taken away such a Tabernacle according to Christs prediction Iohn 4.21 that there might be no distinction of Iewes and Gentiles all having one access by one Spirit to the Father Eph. 2.18 As for his proofs I intend not to construe every speech of Mr C. there being many of them if they be good sense yet very darke but onely shew the impertinency of his Texts to this purpose Leâ—i 26.11 1â— Containes a promise proper to the Isralites obeying God v as v 13 c. and shewes and it is a promise of that which is not now to be performed to us or setling his Tabernacle among us the Tabernacle and Temple being now taken away since Christs incarnation God hath setled no Tabernacle now among us but Christs body or heavens Iohn 2.21 Heb. 8.2 and 9.24 or the Câ—urch of God 1 Cor. 3.6 17. and 6.19 and his setling this Tabernacle or Temple is by saving grace hath no reference to ouâ—wâ—rd Church privileges such as Mr. C. means Revel 21.3 is a promise of something to be performed in the last time whether at the calling of the Jewes or after the judgment whatever it be it notes another thing than external right to outward ordinances common to elect and Reprobate though it be expressed by a terme illusive to the material Tabernacle of the Jews Ephes. 2.11 12. It is said the Gentiles were without God in the world after their Conversion not because their children wanted an external right to an initial seal for Cornelius the Centurions children and such Proselytes of the gate wanted such a right and yet were not without God in the world but because they knew not the true God and his will concerning them that believe in Christ Piscat Analys loci or or worshiped not the true God after his will as the new Annot. even as Galat. 4.8 the Galatians before their Conversion are said not to have known God but to do service to them that by nature were not Gods Exod. 29.45 is a promise to the Israelites whom he brought out of Egypt v. 46. and from whom he had sanctified Aâ—ron and his sons Revel 21.4 as v. 3. is neither mâ—â—nt of ouâ—ward ordinances nor of an estaâ—e which is yet pertaining to the godly who are still under persecutions Levit 26.41 42 45. Certain promises of restoring the Israelites from Captivity and bringing them back to Canaan as v. 43 44. shew Zech. 9.11 whether meant of temporal deliverance or spiritual it is another thing than outward ordinances in the former sense it is proper to the Jewes carried to Babylon in the latter to the elect onely The like may be â—aid of Gen. 17.5.5.8 Psal. 111.5 Ierem. 33.31 51. likely v. 35.36 2 Cor. 6.16 18. Exod. 3.6 compared with Leviâ— 20.37 38. Heb â—1 6 In none of whâ—ch their 's a word of a right of Infants or meer professing parents to the visible administration by vertue of Gods Covenant Gen 17.7 to be Abraham and his seed nor doth it follow because God saith my Covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting Covenant Gen 17.13 therefore ouâ—ward ordinances and right to them as then are to be perpetual for then Circumcision of which those wods are spoken must conâ—inue still but raâ—her as Mr Lâ—y in his Annot on Gen 17.13 The Covenant may be said to be everlasting in respect of the spiritual part for which Circumcision was ordained and in respect of the long continuance of the outward ceremony If Ezek 37.25 27. be meant of the Jewes calling in the time yet to come and the same phrases be used yet that eiâ—hâ—r the promise should be meant v 25. of their childrens having â—n inâ—â—ial seal v 27. their having a material Tabernacle or Temple and outward ordinances as in the former time is but a vain conceit For then they must by the same reason have David the son of Iesse to be their king wherefore as by David is meant Christ typified by David so Circumcision is continued in the mortifying of sins Col. 2 11. and Gods placing his Tabernacle is as Piscat sch in Ezâ—h 37.27 The gratious inhabiting of God in the hearts of the elect 2 Cor 6.16 And if because in the new Testament such allusive phrases are found as are in the same language with those used in the old therefore such outward things are imported by them as were in the Law then outward privileges offices rites should be meant by presenting our bodies as Sacrifices being Preists to God c. It is in my apprehension a manifest Anti-evangelical and Iudaizing assertion which Mr C. hath that the Covenant of the Gospel hath outward privileges of Gods Tabernacle annexed as well as Abrahams Covenant yea itn that it is the same with it Sect 3 â—â— when he saith Conc 2. that the Covenant of grace Gen 17. is to be considered as invested with Church Covenant it is such an ambiguous expression as I know not well how to understand what I imagine to be the meaning I have refuted before in this Section Nor doth that which is here said that there is mention of this Covenant to be kept by them v 9. and further expressed in one particular thereof v 10. and that this was required as an initiatory sign incorporating them into one instituted Church body wherby they were made capable of further Church-ordinances and other duties which lay upon them virtually by it prove the Church-covenant he speaks of unless it be proved which I think he cannot do they did tie themselves thereby to walk with one another in holy Communion with subjection to their Superiors as a distinct visible political Church SECT XXXIX Animadversions on Sect 4. of the same Chapter whereby the Coâ—ceits of Mr. C about external being in the Covenant of grace are shewed to be vain Sect 4 Mr. C. sets down this conclusion that there is a bare external being in the Covenant of grace of persons who possibly never shall be saved But he no where shewed in Scripture either the term Covenaâ— of grace or the phrase of being in the Covenant of grace externally or inâ—ernally Did Mr C. and other Paedobaptists distinctly set down 1. What thâ—y mean by the Covenant of grace 2. What they mean by being exâ—ernally in the Covenant of grace whether it be any oâ—her thing than to be Baptized or Circumcised and what it is distinct from one of these or Title to one of them 3. By what act â—t is that a person is externally in the Covenant of grace whether Gods or
an abuse in Stapleton by Dr. Rainold Apol. Thess. Sect 20. to interpret the flock of God redeemed by his blood of any reprobates Of 2 Pet. 2.1 I have spoken before An externall being in the covenant of grace quoad homines by the parties profession I never denied but an externall being in the covenant of grace of believers infants by vertue of the parents faith in the New Testament I still deny Mr C. takes upon him to answer my Dilemma Examen pag. 52. and tells me The covenant is theirs externally and quoad homines considered as invested with Church-covenant and in reference to covenant-ordinances whereof they are capable as of old they were of Circumcision and are now of baptism Thus it is theirs at present in respect of the visible faith and interest of the parent or parents in the covenant and for the future it 's theirs in the further grace of the covenant upon condition of their believing if they do live to years of discretion Answer The position I intended to prove by the Dilemma was set down page 48. That the Covenant of saving grace in Christ expressed Gen 17 7. in these words I will be thy God and the God of thy seed is not made to a believer and his naâ—urall seed to which Mr C. his answer is by telling me The covenant is theirs externally c. which is to answer nothing to the Argument which proceeded against the asserting Gods Covenant Gen. 17.7 as a promise of saving grace to belong to a believers naturall seed Nor doth he prove but dictate that Gen. 17.7 Ther 's a promise concerning the externall covenant or to any Gentile believers naturall seed or that there is any mention of Church-covenant or that â—itle to Church-ordinâ—nces as Baptism and Circumcision is derived from interest in the promise Gen 17.7 Or that the parents visible faith or interest in the covenant makes it the childrens or that the covenant is such an ambulatory or revocable contract as to be the infants for the present in respect of the parents faith but for the future it 's theirs in the further grace of the the covenant upon condition of believing if they live to years of discretion These Dictates are hatched in Mr. C. his nest but have nothing in the Text for them nor doth he attempt to prove them in that chapter which is termed The Explication of Gen. 17.7 c. In like manner he dictates in that which follows I had said if the covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not â—f he do not keep it then he breaks his word which is blasphemy if he do keep it then it follows that all the posterity of believers are saved contrary to Rom. 9.13 Or if some are not saved though they be in the covenant of grace there may be Apostasie of persons in the covenant of grace In answer to which he tels me God may be said absolutely to covenant with believers seed collectively and specifically considered and yet all the individuall children not saved It is absolutelely made and made good that that sort of persons shall be and are saved by virtue of Gods covenant for some of them are infallibly saved the covenant is to the indefinite collective seed or children in respect of internall saving interest else none of them dying Infants should be saved Whereto I reply The promise is to Abrahams seed Gen. 17. â— But that the promise is to be a God to any Gentile believers naturall indefinite collective seed in respect of the internall saving interest as such is not true The promise is not made indefinitely but definitely to Ahrahams seed under whom none but believers of the Gentiles or elect persons are meant nor is it made specifically to a sort of men but to such and such numericall persons as were Abrahams seed by nature or grace Nor is it made collectively to any of them as part of the whole number of Gentile-believers naturall seed but as Abrahams seed by grace and if any of them be elect it is made also to Gentile unbelievers naturall seed under the same consideration It is true some of the believing Gentiles seed dying infants are saved nor can we say that none of the unbelievers infants dying in infancy are saved notwithstanding the Arguments brought to prove their perishing But none of them are saved by virtue of a promise made to that sort of persons that is believers naturall children for there is no such promise but by vertue of Gods election conformable to which is the promise of saving grace Gen. 17.7 as the Apostle expresly determines Rom. 9.6 7.8 and consequently as election is of individuall persons not of a collective indefinite specificall seed as Mr. C. speaks so is the covenant M. C. goes on thus Supposing they are the Israel of God a part of the elect seed yet the means of saving effect in and upon them is the word of the Covenant Rom. 9.6 It 's through the effectuall word and engaged truth of God that that part of the Church are savingly purged Eph. 5.25 26. Answ. I grant this to be true yet conceive that Eph. 5.25 26. speaks of the word of promise not barely as made but also as accomplished in Christs performance and published by preaching whereupon baptism follows by both which Christ sanctifies and purgeth his Church savingly by the one as the means by the other as the sign He adds The covenant is to the individual seed of all and each of them in respect of externall interest and yet many of them not saved Answer This is an exposition which is without proof or example of the like 1. That where God saith I will be a God to Abrahams seed he means other believers even Gentiles naturall seed 2 That he means this in respect of externall interest onely to some 3. That some of those to whom he promiseth to be a God according to the covenant of grace in Christ may not be saved 4 That by Abrahams seed he meaneth in respect of saving effects the indefinite collective seed of Gentâ—le-believers so as that it is onely made good to that sort of persons which were true if none but Isaac and Iacob were saved For if the promise of salvation be onely to the sort of persons it is made good in one or two of believers seed but in respect of externall interest to the individual seed all and each of them yea though the parents be but hypocrites and not savingly in the covenant of grace themselves He goes on Nor yet is Gods faithfulness impeached or impaired nor need the faith of believers be shaken if this or that child should prove live and die wicked the force of the covenant is not to be measured by the fatall miscarriage of many of Abrahams Church-seed Answer Neither is Gods faithfulness impeached nor need the faith of believers be shaken though all their chidren die wicked It is not true
initiatory seal in his as as well as their flesh is Gods covenant v. 13. or a sacramentall sign firstly and expresly of Gods covenant v. 11. 7. compared albeit it implicitly oblige him and them to other duties formerly mentioned Hence Acts 2.38 39 the seal of baptism is put to the promise as the choice matter and foundation in view and as that was a ground of repentance it self repent and be baptized for the promise is to you not for you have repented as if that were the thing to be firstly sealed by baptism but the promise rather Answ. The inititory seal is a late devised term not found in Scripture and it is used upon an erroneous conceit as if the nature of Sacraments were to be seals of the Covenant and baptism were the initiatory seal But the term initiatory seal is chosen rather than the word baptism though it be the Scripture term by Mr. C. and others that they may shuffle what they say in and out under the term of ininitiatory seal sometimes understanding by it Circumcision sometimes baptism as if they were the same and what is said of the one were meant of the other which is meer fallacious arguing But setting aside Mr. C's lately devised term the end of Christian baptism is in the first place that thereby the party baptizâ—d may testifie his repentance faith and hope in Christ love to the people of God and resolution to follow Christ to the death And this is proved in my Exercit in the twelfth reason of my doubting about Pedobaptism pag. 33. in the 2 part of this Review Sect. 5. from these Scriptures Rom. 6.3 4.5 1 Cor. 12.13 Gal. 3.26 27. Ephe. 4.5 Col. 2 12. 1 Pet. 3.20 where the phrase of the answer of a good conscience as Beza rightly observes in his Annot. on that place alludes to the manner of the primitive baptizing after the answer to the questions propounded concerning the parties repentance faith and obedience which were held so necessary to baptism in the first ages of the Christian Church that none was baptized without it yea and when infant baptism came up even till our dayes and in some places according to the Common prayer Book even to the infants the same questions are propounded yea the Lutherans confesse that without faith in infants it is in vain to baptize them The continuance of which questions as Lud Vives Comment in Augustin de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. rightly saith proves the original use of baptism to be of those only that could answer those questions In respect of which Basil and others call baptism the seal of faith Tertullian of repenâ—ance the sealing of faith Chamier Paustr Cath. tom 4. l. 2. c. 8. cites the treatise of the spirit under the name of Bazil ch 12. saying Confession goes before bringing to salvation baptism followes sealing our consent whence he infers thus manifestly salvation is ascribed to confession but baptism is the seal of confession No where that ever I could find among the Ancients is baptism termed the seal of the Covenant Bucer on Acts. 2.38 To be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is by the sign of baptism to testifie that were the believers in Christ for remission of sins Grot Annot on Mark. 16.16 And is baptized he that believeth and by baptism maketh profession of his faith So that the profession of faith by it is the primary end and use of baptism nor is there any place of Scripture that I know which doth make the end of baptism to be the sealing of Gods Covenant to us And here by the way it is to be noted what shifting is used in this matter by Pedobaptist They say the seal follows the Covenant and the parties interest in it and this Covenant they make the righteousness of faith as Mr. C. here but when they are pressed that then in vain are infants non-elect and non-believers baptized who are not in that Covenant they fly to an imaginary external Covenant and visible interest in that as sealed by it and there by a right to be baptized which yet by their own confession is not the Covenant of grace nor by sealing that interest is the Covenant of grace sealed for that is Gods Covenant of righteousness by faith not the baptized persons Covenant or his right As for Mr. C's observations here they are false and slighty For neither is it true that it is hence because baptism is not primarily the seal of mans faith and repentance but of Gods Covenant rather Abrahams circumcision was called a seal of the righteousness of faith but the contrary rather is true For if it were a seal of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised it sealed rather his own faith and the righteousness by it already obtained than Gods covenant to him of something to come And if circumcision be called Gods Covenant yet it follows not that baptism is rather a seal of Gods covenant than of mans faith and repentance That which he saith of Acts. 2.38.39 is as vain For the promise is not alledged there as sealed in baptism or giving any right to baptism but meerly as a motive to them to repent and to be baptized in the sense I give Antipaedobapt part 1. Sect. 5. In this part of the Review Sect. 5.8.21 22 23 wherein Mr· C's frivolous interpretation is examined And though the Apostle do not bid them be baptized because they had repented yet he bids them first to repent and then be baptized Infants have no visible title to baptism because they make no visible personal profession Parental faith in the Covenant made to them and their children is but a delusion What ever may be said of the texts Deuteronomy 26.17 Deuteronomy 29.10 11 12. c. Concerning taking it of children of which in the examining of Mr. B's remainder there is no visibility of infants Church-membership in the Christian churches mentioned in Scripture I know not how the believing Gods testimony is the assent of charity I still say there is no judgment of charity concerning infants who do nothing which may be interpreted to the better or the worse Mr. C. if he had recited my words fully in my Examen Pag. 41. might have found my words to yeeld him no help for his fourth Conclusion I pass on to the fifth SECT XLI Sect. 41. Animadversions on the sixth sect of the same ch shewing that Christ is not head of any unsound members noâ— parents profession of faith unites children to Christ so as to entitle them to baptism SEct. sixthly he sets down this conclusion That Christ is in Scripture considered as head of the visible Church in which are many members of Christ the â—ead in that respect which prove unsound as well as in other respects he is considered as head of the visible Church wherein are none but elect ones Concerning which I say that part of the invisible Church which is on
the promise indefinitly as Deut 30.6 Jerem 31.37 Gen. 17.7 In which answer 1. he makes a distinction to include them in the promise whom the Apostle excludes from it 2. Whereas the Apostle determines the elect onely to be included in the promise taken in an Evangelicall sense Mr. C. includes the elect and non-elect even the worst of the Iewes whom the Apostle excludes 3. He abuseth Acts 3.25 26 Deut 30.6 by interpreting them as belonging to the worst of the Jewes in respect of externall right which are express about turning from iniquities and circumcising the heart The second objection is better framed yet not so fully as had been requisite Mr C. his conclusion is That the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenaâ—nt belonged to all the Iewes even the worst of them in respect of externall right to outward ordinances But that is false For it did not belong to the children after the flesh to the Jerusalem that then was which was in bondage with her children they were to be cast out being of the bondâ—woman Gal. 3.23 25 28 30 31. Ergo the covenant of grace c. Again They to whom belongs the covenant of grace as invested with church-covenant in respect of externall right are children of the promise Gen. 17.7 But many of the Iewes were not children of the promise Gen. 17.7 as is proved from Gal. 4.28 29 Rom. 9 8. Ergo Now what doth Mr. C. answer He tells us That they are called children of the flesh not begotten by naturall generation for then Isaac also should be a child of the flesh But he is called a child of the flesh who though born by naturall generation of Abraham yet sought righteousness by the Law which was not Ierusalem of old but Ierusalem which was when Paul wrote this long after Christs time Res. But was not it true also of the Ierusalem that was when Christ was Did not our Lord Christ deny them to be Abrahams childreÌ„ told them they were the Divels children Iohn 8.39 44. though he granted them to be Abrahams seed by natural generation v. 37. and yet Mr C calls them Abrahams Church-seed or Church-seed of the promise instated in the covenant of grace as invested also with Church-cavenant children even of that free covenant of blessing in Christ Acts 3.25 26 and had the promises indefinitly as Deut. 30 6. Jer. 31 37. Gen. 17.7 c. beloaging to them Rom. 9.4 and were children of God Christs Matth. 15 26. I deny not but Iohn 1.12 those that rejected Christ are called Christs own but not because of their right in him or promise to them to own them as in the covenant of grace but as they were ingaged to him in respect of his deliverance out of Aegypt and other mercies to them and their nearness of consanguinity to him as Paul calls Israel his flesh Rom. 11.14 Christ being from them according to the flesh Rom. 9 5. But to say that even then they were in the covenant of grace when they received not Christ is to conceive they were in the Olive when they were broken off And yet I deny not that they had in Christs time a right to circumcision but no externall right to the covenant of grace as Mr C. dreams SECT LXIII That the Covenant at Mount Sinai was a Covenant of Works and not of Evangelical grace and that the Iewish Church and State were but one body A Third objection against Mr C. his sixth Conclusion is they were under the old and first covenant which was formerly c. and not under the new or in the covenant of grace To this he answers That even Sinai covenant could not disanull that covenant formerly made with them in Abraham and being much later than it Gal 3.16 17. And after when the covenant is said to be new and old it is not divisio generis in species but subjecti in adjuncta So the phrases first and second Heb. 9 note not two Testaments specifically different but numerically Besides it 's called a first and second Testament scil in order of succession so the former is said to be faulty comparatively not absolutely In a word in way and manner of dispensation that was different from the covenant now dispensed in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Reply The answer of Mr C. I conceive is reduced to these two points 1. That the Jewes were under both covenants that of Sinai and that of Abraham 2. That these two covenants the first and the second the New and Old mentioned Heb 8 9. differ in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials To which I reply That this is contrary to the Apostles supposition that the same men which were under the covenant of mount Sinai should be under the promise For he supposeth them to be cast out Gal 4.21 30 and saith v. 31 we are not children of the bondwoman that is under the Law v 23 but of the free that is the promise Yea cha 5.18 If yee be led by the Spirit ye are not under the Law The like whereto is said Rom 6 14 Gal 3 10 11 12 I deny not but that the Iews who were under the covenant of grace that is believers in Christ were both under the obedience of the Law and the hope of the Gospel and under the covenant of the Law so far as concerned their prosperity in Canaan but not in respect of righteousness and life or any other Ecclesiasticall privilege As for the other part of the answer I find Mr Perkins on Gal 5 24 25 saying it is a main pillar in Popish Religion that the Law of Moses and the Gospel are all one in substance c. Which I know not well how to distinguish from Mr C. his position that the new and old covenant differ not in essentials But let 's examine it The essentials of a thing are the genus and difference It is granted that the new and old first and second covenant differ not in the genus no more doth the covenant with Adam in innocency with Noah after the Flood they are all covenants of God But that there is no essentiall difference distinguishing between the covenant at mount Sinai and the new covenanâ— and that they differ in way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials â—s I am assured a manifest error both against Scripture and I think the Authors themselves though not only Mr C. here but also the Assembly Confession of Faith c. 7. Art 5. saith The covenant of grace was administred c. and is called the old Testament which to be meant of the covenant of mount Sinai I conceive from these words of Mr M Dâ—fâ—nce page 188. Alas Sir why do you run into this needless and erroneous digression I said in my Sermon that the Morall Law was added 430 years after the covenant with Abraham
not as a part of that covenant but as a School-master to whip them to Christ that they finding the impossibility of keeping the Law might more earnestly long after Christ exhibited in those shadowes of rites and sacrifices c. But to say that this covenant mentioned in the eighth of the Hebrews was the covenant of works is a most erroneous doctrine Look into the text and you shall find that the covenant which is there mentioned which God finds fault with and calls the first covenant in opposition to this better covenant had ordinances of divine worship had a Sanctuary a Tabernacle Priests and High-priests Sacrifices and other rites belonging to the administration of it Sir was this the covenant of works I hope you will not own it in your next Mr Anthony Burgess another Assembly man Vindic. Legis Lect. 24 maintains with a distinction the Law at mount Sinai to be a covenant of grace Like whereto are the opinions of Mr John Ball of the covenant of grace ch 7 page 102 Dr. Samuel Boulton True bounds of Christian freedom page 130 c. Mr Thomas Blake Vindic. Foeder c. 24 c. But as in other things there is much dictating besides the Scriptures in the received writings of men so in this Mr C. saith The difference between the old and new Covenant is in the way and manner of dispensation in respect of ceremony of administration not in the essentials Concerning which it is to be observed that to dispense is to lay out as a Steward doth lay out money To dispense a Covenant may be understood either by making it known or performing the things promised on either side the same may be conceived to be meant by administration The ceremony of administration I understand not what it is unless by it be meant the rites of the Old and New Testament This then seems to be either all or the main difference Mr C. makes between the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai and the new covenant confirmed in the blood of Christ with Jewes and Gentiles that the former had Circumcision the Passover Sacrifices c. by which the covenant of grace was made or the things promised conferred the new covenent had Baptism and the Lords Supper A Covenant is a promise and so an action and when mutuall there 's a reciprocall action I know not what other predicament to place it in The essentials of a thing are in corporeall substances matter and forme in other beings those things which in proportion to them shew what it is and wherein it is differenced from others under the same genus which essentials the Logicians call the genus and difference The essentiall difference of one action from another is the terminus or effect as heating from cooling in the object subject end A Covenant being essentially a promise differs essetntially from another promise when the things promised are different as the promise of land differs essentially from the promise of life and when the conditions are different though the things promised be the same as the promise of land to one for so much money is essentially different from the promise of land upon the condition of thanks The covenant of works and of grace are terms not used in Scripture But Rom. 11.5 6 Election by grace and of works Rom 4 4 it is said to him that worketh the reward is reckoned not according to grace but according to debt Ephes. 2.8 9 Yee are saved by grace not of works 2 Tim 1.9 who hath saved us and called us with an holy calling not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace Titus 3.5 He saved us not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his own mercy Yet I think the distinction right and good of the covenant of grace and the covenant of works And the difference between them is 1. in the thing promised the one promiseth life upon obedience to the Law given but not strength to do it the other promiseth the Spirit to inable for doing 2. in the condition the one promiseth life upon perfect obedience the other upon faith in Christ. These differences are confirmed from sundry Texts Rom 10.5 2 Cor. 3.6 10 Gal. 3.10 12 22 c. I think in a promise the different end of the promiser makes not an essential difference I think it is the same promise essentially when one promiseth land upon condition of giving thanks to shew his bounty and another to engage him to his party though the ends be different My determination in this Writing is as it was in the former Exam. page 102. That the new Covenant is not the old renewed but that they differ specifically in the essentials and not onely in Rites and that the Covenant at mount Sinai was a covenant of works And this I prove 1. From that Text which here Mr. C. Mr M. the Assembly and others stand so much upon to wit Heb 8 8 9. 10. The old covenant there meant is the covenant made with Israel at mount Sinai which appears in that it was the covenant which God made with the Fathers of the Iewes in the day that he took them by their hand to bring them out of the land of Aegypt Now that covenant differs essentially more than in Rites from the new covenant yea as a covenant of works is diffrent from the covenant of Evangelical grace â— Because the new covenant is said to be established or setled as a Law â—n better promises Heb 8.6 Now if the promises be better promises it is because they be of better things and if of better things then of different things and so the difference is more than in Rites yea it is in essentials for promises of different things essentially make different covenants essentially And that the difference is in the meliority of promises and that these promises be of better things is apparent from the recitall of the promises Heb â— 10 11 12. 10. â—â— â—7 where also by the offering of Christ that Testament is said to be of force By this also the covenant at mount Sinai is proved not to be the covenant of Gospel-grace For then it had had as good promises yea the same promises 2. If it had been the covenant of grace they had abode in it For that is a covenant which they that are in continue in But in the old covenant or that at mount Sinai they abode not v. 9. Ergo c. 3. That is not the covenant of grace which is faulty or which is the meaning of â—t occasioning God to complain for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we translate Faultless is that which is without complaint and the meaning is the first covenant occasioned complaint of the Israelites as it is v. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 complaining of them he doth not say it as Mr. M. seems to have understood it as if God had found fault with the covenant that 's a
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
think it is not a condition of the promise v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. to wit of restoring from captivity upon their seeking of God But if it be made a condition of the promise v. 6. yet it is not a condition competent to Infants nor is it there made to any but the Israelites and to them onely at the time of their return from captivity in reference to their re-establishing in the land of Canaan and so was not common to them all much less to all believing Gentiles at all times It is untrue that the promise of saving grace is made to any onely externally or that it takes not effect in all to whom it is made or that any such thing is meant Rom. 3.3 9.6 7 8. though I deny not that there were many promises to Israel after the flesh which being indefinite in respect of persons and conditionall upon obedience to the lawes given by Moses took not effect in all the Israelites though in generall propounded and therefore notwithstanding some attained them not yet the faith of God was not without effect But all this is nothing to the objection concerning Gods covenant of saving grace in Christ which is not shewed to be made to any but the saved nor shewed to be in respect of the persons taken into covenant conditional 3 Saith Mr. C. This Argument supposeth that one cannot be within the Covenant of saving grace externally but they must be in a saving estate the contrary whereunto appeareth Concl. 3. And it is said of sundry illegitimate Jewish Children that they were within the covenant of saving grace namely externally for the Author cannot mean other And yet of all such who will say they were all in a saving estate Even Esau's Birthright was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it was a Church blessing as well as a Naturall and Civill Ans. That any one is in the covenant of saving grace onely externally is not proved before My words Examen pag. 78. which Mâ— C. seems to mean â—hâ—t Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar Jephie of Gilead and many others were within the covenant of saving graces and Church-privileges are not meant of the covenant of saving grace exâ—ernally onely but also internally Esau's birth-right was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac it is that which Jacob was not born to for it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the right of the first born which Jacob had not but by purchase and blessing nor is it denied to be a Church-blessing but that it was the spirituall blessing promised to Abrahams seed to wit justification and salvation from the covenant of saving grace I do not conceive for that was not limited to the first born as the birth-right was and therefore it seâ—ms to have been either the superiority or the inhâ—ritance of Canaan or the descent of Christ and the Chuch of God from him to which I most incline the losse of whâ—ch being a great losse and having with it the privation of interest in the covenant of saving grace he being hâ—ted of God made Isaac tremble and Esau cry and were a 〈◊〉 instance to set before the Cristian Hebrews lest thâ—y through prophane underâ—â—â—â—ing Christ fail of the grace of God Mr. C. adds 3. Object But saith â— S. the Covenant of grace being a Covenant there must be a mutuall agreement betwixt the Covenanters and so knowledge and consideration of the terms thereof and restipulation as in mens covenants Henry Den a little differently maketh a necessity of the persons entering into covenant with God scil by faith unto covenant-right and not meerly Gods entering into Covenant with the creature for so he entered into covenant with the Beasts c. Gen. 9 10. Answer To which I answer the covenant of grace is as well a Testament 1 Cor. 11. Heb 9. Now a Testament may be and useth to be made in reference to little ones without their knowledge nor do any usâ— to deny a Childs right in the Testators will because it was taken in amongst other Legacies in the bequeathed Legacies before it understood the same Nor will it be denied in the case of the elect seed the choice parties in Gods Covenant Gen. 17. That they many of them dying Infants without actuall knowledge were not therefore children of the promise or that that solemn Covenant Deut. 29.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 30.6 7 8 9 10 c. with that people wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts that therefore the Covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood nor could actually subscribe to the conditions the contrary being there expressed No rather it sufficed that the childrens covenant-estate being the parents privilege whence the encouragements to Abraham to walk with God Gen. 17.1 c. from that amongst other encouragements that God would become his Seeds God also v. 7. and so Deut. 29 and 30. amoongst other encouragements to the parents that is one v. 6. that God will do so for their seed also yea the children being reckoned as in their parents as Levi paid Tythes in Abraham c. Yea the externall avouching a Covenant may be of God being owned as the childrenâ— Deut. â—6 16 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the parents covenant duty whence called the Covenant or the covenant parties covenant part or duty as well as the token of Gods Covenant Gen. 9.7 9 10 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms as well upon their childrens part as their own they restipulate in a passive reception of the Cvenant-condition and Bond too after imitation of their Father Abrahams purposeâ— S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenanâ— yea the bastard children of Judah and Gilead and others are acknowledged to be in the Covenant of saving grace which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge or faith or the like Answ. The Objection as it is not mine so I might let it and the answer passe but that there are some things in the answer to it that do requiâ—e consideration In the first part of this Review Sect. 5. answering Mr. Stephens his argumenâ—s for the Convertibility as he caâ—ls iâ— of a word of promise and a word of command from the general nature of Covenants between men and men I had said the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—o not alwayes note a mutuall covenant and mutuall performancâ—s and instanced in Gen. 9.10 and said there is a single covenant as well as muâ—uall and further added that if it be true that such a convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the generall nature of Covenants then there can be no Covenant between God and Infâ—nt 〈◊〉 Infant cannot contract If any say the Parents
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
Covenant but all are strangers And this priviledge of Ordinances implies also all priviledges leading to and accompanying salvation and salvation it seâ—f upon Gods terms in his word revealed And so before the disputation the Reader hath my supposition Answ. The Reader hath a supposition indeed but such a one as if he examine it he will be more to seek concerning Mr. Bls. mind then if he had omitted it But I shâ—ll as fairly as the ambiguity of his exprâ—ssions will permit search out his meaning There are no fewer then nine Propositions thrust together in these words of his That all that is necessarily included in Gods entrance of Covenant with a people engaging to be their God and taking them for his people is here by this grand Charter of Heaven made over to Abraham and his natural issue by Isaac and Jacob. In which 1. he asserts the promise Gen 17.7 to be the grand Charter of Heaven And I grant it to be so in the sense in which the Apostle means it Gal. 3.16 17 18 Rom. 4.16 and elsewhere to wit as it is a promise of regeneration justification eternal life which I call Evangelical grace 2. He speaks of Gods entrance of Covenant with a people engaging to be their God and taking them for his people and of things necessarily encluded in this entrance of â—ovenant But there are many ambiguities in these exprâ—ssions The term entrance into Covenant is ambiguous He may be said to enter into Covenant who offers it or who makes and concludes it The term people of God is ambiguous it may be meant either of his people by special right as the ten Tribes were when they fell off to idolatry or his people by outward profession onely or his people by effectual saving calling The terms engaging to be their God and taking them for his people may be understood in respect of temporary protection advancement rule c. or righteousness and eternal life The word people may note either singular persons or the collective body of a Nation which may not include every singâ—lar person He supposeth things necessarily included in Gods entrance of Covenant with a people But I am not yet convinced that any things are necessarily included in Gods entrance of Covenant with a people engaging to be theâ—r God and taking them fâ—r his people but that all things therein included are arbitrary or of his free-will And if there be any things necessarily included sure they are not priviledges of Ordinances I mean initial and after Seals visible Church-membership of Infants for God entred into Covenant witâ— Abraham long bâ—fore and never promised those things so he did with Noah and with Adam And that which agreeably to the Scripture was promised Gen 17.7 was to the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob peculiar protection provision rule 1 Sam. 12.12 by giving Laws to them appointing them Judges directing tâ—em by Oracles in war and peace c. To the spiritual seed of Abraham the promise was of Christ righteousness adoption and the inheritance of eternal life not those petty things which Mr Bl. doth frivolously imagine to have been contained in that grand Charter of Heaven as he calls it which is the thing that Mr. Bl. would fain squeeze out of that text though there be not the least colour in all the holy Scripture for it His second Proposition is that All Isaac's and Jacobs posterity are branches of this root by nature simply considered which if he understand of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob as a natural root propagating them by natural generation I grant it if he mean it of a Covenant root as he calls it as deriving from them Evangelical grace by the Covenant Gen. 17.7 I deny it His 3d. is and they are holy branches by vertue of this Covenant which if he mean they were holy in respect of Gods special rule setting up his Tabernacle among them and such like prerogatives as are mentioned Rom. 9.4 5. I grant it But if he mean it of holiness according to election of grace as Rom. 11.16 is meant it is not true His 4th is that this Covenant necessarily implies priviledge of Ordinances the fruition of Gods Oracles which if he mean in this sensâ— that Gods worship should be among them that the Laws of God and his Word should be to the collective body of Israel I grant it but if he mean it of visible church-membership of infants initial and after Seals which is the thing he aims at I deny it The 5th that priviledge of Ordinances and fruition of Gods Oracles are Gods Covenant draughts hath the same answer The 6th and 7th that without this priviledges of Ordinances and fruition of Gods Oracles no people are in Covenant but all are strangers if it be meant of the Covenant of Evangelical grace and of particular persons the Propositions are manifestly false for then no infants dying afore they have an initial Seal hear the Word c. should be in Covenant if it be meant of the priviledges of Ordinances and fruition of Gods Ordinances in any sort I grant that if there be no worship of God among them no fruition of Gods Word written or unwritten no people of ripe age whether families or nations or single persons can be said to be in Covenant but are strangers from it but if they be understood of such peculiar Oâ—dinances and Oracles as the Jews had Rom. 9. 4 5. I deny it for Adam Seth Enoch Noah c. were in Covenant with God without them His 8th And this priviledge of Ordinances implies also all priviledges leading to and accompanying salvation if meant of in-being in Christ having his spirit to dwell in them which are the chief priviledges leading to and accompanying salvation and of all that have the priviledge of Ordinances I deny it unless he mean it as he doth the 9th Proposition that this priviledge of Ordinances implies salvation it self upon Gods terms in his word revealed which are Repentance and Faith in Christ and then both Propositions are granted the 8th and the 9th that the priviledge of Ordinances doth imply both in-being in Christ and his spirits in dwelling and salvation it self to them that repent and believe in Christ. Which is true also of them that have not this priviledge of Ordinances as Cornelius and many more And thus Mr. Bl. also hath my exposition and answer concerning his position and supposition Let 's now see what he proves SECT XLVIII The 35th and 37th Chapters of Mr. Bls. Vind. Faed are examined and his Arguments concluding the natural issue of believers to be taken into Covenant are answered HE intitles thus ch 35. Arguments concluding the natural issue of Abraham Isaac and Jacob to be taken into Covenant which he may prove and not oppse me who grant that God promisetâ— Gen. 17.7 to be a God to the natural seed of Abraham inheriting in domestick and political benefits From whence he falsly infers that I
so as to be the people of God and to enjoy all priviledges of his people in order upon Gods termes to everlasting salvation But 1. not one nor all prove that God did promise to all Gen. 17.7 or any such outward priviledges as he means to wit to be circumcised or right to it and the Passeover nor that all enjoy them 2. The promises of justification adoption eternal life upon Gods termes without the promise of regeneration and effectual calling make noâ— a person to be in the Covenant nor a people holy to the Lord Evangeliâ—ally Now this promise Mr. Bl. hath not proved to be made to all the natural seed of Abraham by Isaac and Jacob and till he doth so he proves nothing against my assertion Exercit. pag. 3 which he pretended fully to oppose but hath failed to do it His 36. ch is answered before sect 29. I pass on to ch 37. which is thus entituled The Covenant in New Testament times takes in parents with their children This he sets himself to make good first by interrogatories and then by Peters words Acts 2.38 39. which is answered before sect 21. A little oâ— his interrogatories To his first if by the grant he mean the Covenant of grace Evangelical I deny it to have been ever made to a beliâ—ver and all his seed nor is it proved by Mr. Bl. If a Covenant of visible Church-membership and initial seal I deny any such Covenant ever made by God to a believer and his seed or the grant thereof to have been held by the Church of God in fee from Abraham to this present hour and therefore need shew no reverse of such a grant To his 2d demand I grant a whole nation may enter into Covenant as Deut 29. nor do I restrain any from engagement of their infants and posterity unborn by an oath and curse to own God But I finde there no promise or grant of visible Church-membership and initial seal to believers and their seed by vertue of such a Covenant His other frivolous questions in that demand are answered often that the difference ariseth fâ—om the different institution of Circumcision which is the rule of administring them not interest in the Covenant if there were such To his 3d. demand I know no scandal ever given or likely to be given to the Jews by not baptizing infants His random talk of sâ—riking out of the Covenant infants is shewed often before to be vain as going on suppositions not proved To his allegâ—tions of Gen. 17.7 Ezek 16.20 1 Cor. 7.14 I have often answered before To his 4th that the reason why in the Apostles dayes and the next age to them no question was moved about the baptizing of infants though infants were circumcised by the Jews is manifest to wit Christ had not appointed infants to be bapâ—ized the Apostles and primitive Christians did not at all use it it was contrary to the end and use of baptism as appointed by Christ they knew not of the Paedobaptists doctrine about the title to baptism from the Covenant and its succession to circumcision But Mr. Bl. further refers me to Mr. Baxters Treatise of Infants Church-membership proving that infants were sometimes Church members pag 26 27. that there is no repeal of this grant vouchsafed of God pag. 27 28. waiting for some fair answer to the former demands Whereto I shall address my self as being very desirous wiâ—h the assistance of the Lord to do my endeavour for the freeing of men from the delusion of that Book wherewith a great number of Paedobaptists have been gulled SECT XLIX The 4th Ch. of Mr. Baxters Part 1. of Plain Scripture-proof c. is examined his conceits about Infants visible Church membership and their admission considered and sundry Animadversions made on that Chapter MR. B. part 1. ch 4. of his Plain Scripture-proof c. writes thus My 2d argument and the chief I shall make use of is this All that ought to be admitted visible Church-members ordinarily ought to be baptized But some Infants ought to be admitted visiblâ— Church-members therefore some Infants ordinarily ought to be baptized Mr. T. hath gone over and over the terms of this Argument so oft as if he could not possibly find out my meaning in them when they are as plain as I well know how to express my self A great while he fain would have denied the major Proposition but at last he is content to deny onely the minor And indeed that is the very heart of the controversie The question between us is noâ— so muâ—h Whether infants may be baptized as Whether they are in the number of Christians and to be added as members to the visible Church If Mr. T. did grant the minor and not deny our children Christianity and to be members of the Church I should for my part think his errour though foul yet of less consequence in denying of Baptism But it is their Church-membership that he denieth and yeeldeth that all that ought to be admiâ—ted members should be baptized Answ. That I did often in the dispuâ—e at Bewdly go over and over the terms of this argument need not seem stâ—aâ—ge when Mr. Thomas Hooker having the book he was to examine before him in Print in a like point saith thus survey of the summe of Church Discipline Part 1. ch 12. When I had read over Mr. Rutherford once and again I was at a stand in mine own thoughts to determine certainly what was his proper intendment by the catholick and visible Church I might well doubt what he meant by the visible Church how he defined iâ— wherein his notion is different from what others have as is shewed before in the 2d part of this Review sect 17. whether he meant the visible Church catholick or particular and if particular whether Jewish or Christian. And for the admission what he meant by it how and by whom it ought to be was doubtfull I perceived in the very entrance of the dispute by his preface and his propounding the question about our baptizing representing it as odious as if it were murder and adultery and after by his denying liberty of repeating to mee refusing to explain his own terms scoffingly putting if off as if it were catechizing of him when I desired him to open some terms to me which he used and when I told him that it was needfull the people should understand us he replyed he came to dispute with me not to instruct them nor would clear them except I could by distinction force him to it I deprehended that he was as I found him bent to catch advantages to insult over me and carry away the same of a victory and not in a brotherly candid way to discuss the point that truth might appear to all the hearers which I hoped from a man so seemingly godly Upon which reasons I confess I was hesitant both about the answering of this and other arguments all along the dispute finding that Mr. B. had
the Dispute which though imperfect yet both agree that the argument then was â—his They who solemnly entred into Covenant with God were visible churchmembers But the infants of the Jews in the wilderness uncircumcisâ—d did so Ergo. Mr. B. himself in his Corrective sect 5. The Text in Deut. 29. was brought to prove that God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people and to be their God and consequently made them churchmembers The form here used doth vary the conclusion and the medium and particularly the term who solemnly entred into Covenant with God into this were entred into Covenant with God and in his Correct sect 5. into this God entred into Covenant with infants to take them for his people and to be their God between which there is so great a difference that as the argument was framed in the Dispute I should not deny the major but as there it is framed I should deny the consequence it being certain God may enter into Covenant with some to take them for his people and to be their God who neither are nor ever shall be visible churchmembers as elect peâ—sons dying with death-bed repentance not manifested c. But I shall keep to the form as it is here used And 1. I grant that the churchmembership of the infants which did pass into Covenant Deut. 29.10 11 12. is not repealed For it being an individual accident can neither in congruous sense be said to be repealed nor it being nonâ—ens now is it capable of repeal if the speech were right 2. I grant also that Gods Covenant of grace or his Gospel covenant is not repealed that is changed into another Covenant 3. I grant also that invisible churchmembership is built on the Covenant of grace or the Gospel covenant or is inseparably conjunct with it But this I deny 1. that any law of infants visible churchmembership unrepealed is contained in Deut. 29.10 11 12. 2. That the mutual Covenant entred into there was the Gospel covenant of grace 3. I say that if it were yet it follows not that infant visible churchmembership is not ceased or in Mr. Bs. dialect repealed But let us view Mr. Bs. proof 1. Saith he Mr. T. denied long together in the face of many thousand people that the infants were entred into any such Covenant against the plain letter of the Text Yet he persisted to deny it without any reason as you may see in the Dispute if out If plain Scripture will not satisfie these men why then do they call for Scripture The words are Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God your Captains of your Tribes your Officers Elders and all the men of Israel your little ones your wives and the stranger that is in thy camp from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water that thou shouldest enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his Oath which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day that he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself and that he may be to thee a God c. He that saith infants did not pass into this Covenant I question whether he believe this to be the word of God For how should it be spoken plainer Answ. The thing which I denied was that infants did visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant which Mr. B. affirmed and I gave the reason because they did by no visible sign declare their assent to the Covenant And when Mr. B. replied that the parents did it for them I answered the parents act for them might bind them but yet it is not their act nor that which makes a visible churchmember and sure had I conceived his minor so meant that the infants did by their parents visibly and solemnly enter into Covenant I should have granted it and denied his major They who visibly and solemnly entred into Covenant with God by their parents act for them were visible churchmembers Now this answering of mine he endeavoured then and since to represent with as much disparagement as might bâ— to me though what ever imperfection there were in my answer which I do not deprehend to have been such as Mr. B. hath made it it was in a great part from Mr. Bs. ambiguous use of words and his captious taking advantage from my words and not explaining his own which made me answer somewhat perplexedly But the matter being now in print let 's view the Dispute as iâ— stands in the Books I had said in my Sermon and after in my Antidote sect 5. that thou v. 12. doth not necessaâ—ily comprehend the little ones To this Mr. B. in his Correct pag. 249. replies 1. that he either sets a low value on my conscience or judgement which is not worth answering 2. Do you not know saith he that thou is a collective term usually through the Books of Moses spoken of all the people except any be particularly excepted Answ. I do know it is a collective term yeâ— often used with exception of infants by the matter of the speech though not pâ—rticularly And for this I need go no further then Deut. 29.2 3 4 5. Deut. 30.1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. And in some of these v. 2. thou and thy children v. 6. thine heart and the heart of thy seed v. 19. thou and thy seed Deut. 29.29 us and our children are so expresly distinguished that I am much confirmed that thou Deut. 29.12 doth not compreheâ—d the little ones v. 11. 3. Saith he Are not little ones here named and yet are they excluded Answ. Tâ—ey are named v. 11. yet not meant by thou v. 12. 4. Saith he Why should Moses say here stand your children and wives that not they but you might enter into Covenant Answ. 1. Why should the strangers stand there v. 11. and yet Abraham Isaac and Jacob not their fathers v. 13. 2. I conceive God would have a general appearance for the more solâ—mnity of the thing but that some should act in the name of the whole people and therefore menâ—ion of all v. 11. yet the act of covenanting which was personal v. 12. restrained onely to the representatives 5. Doth not Mr. T. confess that the Jews infants were in Covenant why else were they circumcised which is the seal of the Covenant Answ. 1. Circumcision is no where called in Scripture the Seal of the Covenant and how far I allow it may be seen sect 31. 2. Infants were circumcised not because they were in Covenant those who were not in Covenant were to be circumcised 3. The Jews infants were in the political or domestical Covenant made to Abraham all of them upon condition of their obedience to the law some of them in the Covenant or promise of saving grace made to the elect none of them in the Covenant by their own personal act of covenanting or promising which is that alone which I deny and which
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
of a City or of a family and why not of a Church If I say children are members of this Kingdome or to please you Commonwealth or if I say children are members of every City in the land and of every family where they are this is all true and me thinks a man of your parts should understand it And why not when I say that infants are members of the Church But if you will not understand there is no remedy Answ. That Mr. B. and I are not agreed what a visible Church is hath appeared before in the 2d part of this Review sect 17. I think I understand others when they speak of a visible churchmember and I think I now understand Mr. B. But in the Dispute I confess I did not understand Mr. B. when he termed infants visible churchmembers not because of the difficulty of the thing but because Mr. B. had a language as I then imagined and now find of his own of a mediate Disciple and a visible Churchmember by anothers faith without any note in their persons whereby they are discernable sensibly to be Christians more then infidels children Nor did he in the Dispute or since clear it to me that anothers faith could be a form oâ— note whereby an infant might be denominated or discerned sensibly to be a visible Christian churchmember or a Disciple of Christ. This if he shall yet do I shall not trouble him to shew that churchmembership is neither sucking of the brest nor being brought up in a godly family but shall passing by his jeer at the Parliaments altering the term Kingdome into Commonwealth confess infants members of the visible Church as of civil Kingdomes and Cities Till then I take Mr. Bs. language of infants discipleship and visible churchmembership by a promise and parents faith to be frivolous gibberish and false doctrine But Mr. B. attempts to prove his minor 1. from Mal. 2.15 where he would have a seed of God to be visible churchmembers But 1. he no where shews this to be the sense 2. this is not the sense For here the proper end of marriage is expressed which is common to believers and infidels But it is not the end of the marriage of infidels to seek a seed which should be churchmembers visible or invisible neither their nor any others marriage is to propagate godliness or the profession of it but to propagate a legitimate posterity who are called a seed of God because according to his institution But of this interpretation I need say no more then what is said in answer to Mr. M. in the first part of this Review sect 13. and to Mr. Bs. exception against my interpretation here in the 17th section 2. Because infants in Abrahams family were churchmembers before Circumcision Which I grant after the time of Abrahams call and Gods separating his house to be his people and therefore if limited to the space of time between Abrahams call Gen. 12. and the institution of Circumcision Gen. 17. I should grant the minor in Mr. Bs. argument and deny the consequence of the major Nevertheless in the proof of his minor there are sundry things which I think not meet to pass by without animadversion 1. That which he saith Circumcision did not not make infants churchmembers I grant it yet it made them visible churchmembers though not of it self alone yet with other signs So that although I deny not other signs also to have concurred yet this sign in part made them visible members of that Church 2. When he saith the Covenant maketh churchmembers how far it is true is shewed above at large and withal how Mr. B. is mistaken in making it the sole efficient cause 3. If it be true that Circumcision is but a sign of the Covenant as he saith how is it a seal as is commonly asserted and by Mr. B. himself as somewhat more then a bare sign 4. If it be not a sign chiefly of that Covenant which maketh churchmembers but which promised Abraham the extraordinary priviledges after his believing then it is some other Covenant which Circumcision was chiefly a sign of then the Covenant which maketh churchmembers which being as I conceive the Covenant of grace in Christ it follows 1. That the Covenant Gen. 17. according to Mr. B. was not the Covenant of grace 2 That it promised extraordinary priviledges to Abraham 3. That Circumcision was chiefly a sign of this promise and consequently the use of circumcising infants was not out of a reason common to believers infants but peculiar to Abraham and his seed which cross sundry of Paedobaptists prime hypotheses 4. Neither doth the Apostle say Rom. 4. that the promise went before Circumcision nor doth it follow if he did that churchmembership then went before it 5. It may be and by learned men is questioned whether the infants or the parents be termed the breakers of Gods Covenant Gen. 17.14 and if they were it follows not they were of that people and in the Covenant before the breaking the Covenant being not a breaking off from being in Covenant but a breaking of Gods command in that Covenant and their cuâ—ting off from Gods people might be by preventing from being Gods people as well as by making them not his people who were 6. Though the Scripture do not intimate that Abrahams family was then first made a Church yet in calling that Church the Circumcision it intimates that then when they were circumcised they were solemnly declared to be Gods people And if the Scripâ—ure do not intimate that then infants were first admitted members as Mr. B. saith here it will concern him to shew where the Scripture intimates their admission before and how I did conceive by Mr. Bs. words p. 24. and elsewhere that as he now avoucheth no other way by precept or example of admission but by Baptism so he avouched formerly no other way but by Circumcision I wish he had in the beginning told us his mind plainly the concealing of which in the Disâ—ute and since hath occasioned the misleading of many and a great part of my trouble 3. Mr. B. argues thus That infants were churchmembers before Circumcision I prove most likely thus If God had before the same tender love to the faithfull and their seed as he had after and there be no mention in Scripture when the churchmembership of infants did begin since the first infants then we are to judge that it did not begin at the institution of Circumcision but rather with the first infant of faithfull Adam though he after fell off because Gods love to the faithfull and their seed was as great before as after But the antecedent is true therefore the consequent He that will prove a beginning of infants churchmembership since the first infants let him bring any Scripture or good reason for it and I will believe him which I never exâ—ect to be done Answ. 1. This reason if it were good might as well prove the invisible
proposition All the children of an unbeliever are unclean unless for generation he or she be sanctified by a believer For whether by uncleanness we understand non-admissibleness into the Church it is false for the children of unbelievers bought with money by Abraham though infants yet were in Mr. Bls. sense federally holy and me thinks Mr. Bl. who asserts against Mr. Firmin the baptizability of the infants of the generality of Enâ—lish though the parents be openly profane and hate godliness should not deny it however the case is clear in the Circumcision of professed infidels children bought with money Gen. 17.27 And for federal real holiness I suppose Mr. Bl. will not deny but that many of them as Rahab c. were in the Covenant of saving grace To the first of these Mr. Bl. 1. saith thus pag. 338. I pray leave generation out and see whether there can be any sense in it unless it be understood their sanctification will confer no legitimation without generation if I say not believer I must say husband or wiâ—e that is a believer Asw. If generation be left out and believer it may be good sense according to my interpretation An unbelieving husband may be sanctified to his wife that is may lawfully use her though she were an unbeliever as his wife and may continue to live with her and she with him though they never had or should have children else your children which you might beget should be unclean but this being put they are legitimate But according to Mr. Bls. interpretation it is not good sense in the case of the barren for she or he are not instrumentally sanctified for generation there being no generation there is no being an instrument for generation nor sanctification thereto And an instrument is an efficient and where there is no effect there is no efficient nor instrument And to be sanctified instrumentally must be as an instrument to a principal agent which in this thing cannot be any other then God now no instrument of God fails to produce its effect therefore without actual generation no wife can bee said to bee instrumentally sanctified for generation And for the leaving out the term believer it is good sense as I expound it without it and if the Apostle had not conceived it good sense without it hee would not as hee did have left it out But I confess it is not good sense according to Mr. Bls. interpretation who saith though falsely p. 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party as to the holiness of the issue twice over I confess their sanctification would confer no legitimation actual without actual generation yet their might bee legitimation of issue which is enough to shew the consequence to bee good and for the Apostles purpose without actual generation the legitimatiâ—n being onely upon supposition as it is usual in such arguments and so the generatiâ—n onely supposed Doubtless the Apostle resolved the Corinthians of the lawful living together of the barren as well as they that had or should beget which wilâ— not agree with Mr. Bls. exposition of instrumental sanctification for that is not true but of actual generation past or future as I have proved But Mr. Bl. adds the Apostles major is of an unbelieving huusband and a believing wife and I make the propoâ—â—tion universal according to the capacity of the subject of all believing wives joyned to unbelieving husbands not with Mr. T. of all husbands and wives And this is the Apostles included proposition which must bee the basis of so many inferences and refutations when yet all mens Logick except what Mr. T. hath learnt will utterly disclaim it Answ. That the Apostles major is not of an unbelieving husband and a believing wife is manifest by the words in which the term believing is in both speeches left out And sure if the Apostle would have ascribed any thing to the believer as such hee could as easily have put it in as the term unbeliever or the terms brother or sister used v. 12 15. And though I deny not that the wife or huusband opposite to the infidel yoke-fellow were believers yet I have lâ—arned so much Logick and Divinity that what attributes do agree materially do not alwayes agree formally in each speech as though Ishmael was the son of Abraham yet what is said of him Gal. 4 13 24 25 29 30 3â— is said of him nâ—t as Abrahams sonne but as Hagars And so it is here though the husband or wife were a believer yet they are not there considâ—red as believers nor the things there spoken of them ascribed to them under that consideration but under the consideration of husband and wife and if any disclaim this Logick he will disclaim such Logick as the holy Scripture useth in these and other places I alledged in my Examen part 3. sect 8. p. 78. the words of Chamier tom 4. paustr. cath l. 5. c. 10. § 67. against Augustines interpretation of 1 Cor. 7.14 oâ— a ceremonial holiness as apposite to refute his own of federal For saith hee that interpretation is ridiculous if these propositions bee not true that all born of those â—arents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are begotten in the time of the womans monethly courses Infidel husbands never use their wives but at such time for so the Apostle is made to speak by Augustines interpretation Now the self same I shewed to follow on his own interpretation the words being changed which should bee changed in such a retorsion For then according to it the Apostle should say All the children born of those parents of whom one is not sanâ—tified in the other are out of the Covenant of grace infidel parents never beget of their wives children within the Covenant of grace Both which are false and consequently the interpretation of Chamier whence it is apparent that Chamier made these prâ—positions in the Apostles arguing to be included Those children whereof one parent is not sancâ—ified in the other are unclean none of the children of those parents whereof one is not sanctified in the other are holy I said also in my Antidote pag. 16. that Mr. Bl. confessed these propositions included in the Apostles consequence Against this Mr. Bl. thus riseth up What can I iâ—agine but that Mr. T. knowingly fastens this gross untruth upon mee Seeing he so we I knowes that I both deny it and have argued against it having made such defence â—s he could in his Apology of it yâ—t now in his Antidote says I confess it I am overmuch honoured to be named if I may say so the day that Chamier is mentioned but as much wronged to have such a Monster of absurdities as is contained in that proposition obtruded upon mee my thoughts are over-high of Chamier to believe any such weakness in him when Mr. T. shewes it in him having yet given his Reader no account where it may bee found I shall subscribe to that Proverb Nullum
may bee said by Circumcision to bee spiritually baptized For it is not by Baptism but before it that regularly persons are spiritually circumcised nor were the believing Jewes by Circumcision to be spiritually baptized but before it Nor is there any such affinity much less essential sameness between them as that a command about the one should bee a command to us about the other Nor do I finde any thing in that Author which needs further answer hee having added nothing to the cause but some peculiar words and expressions without any strength What Mr. Cobbet hath about this point Just. vindic part 2. c. 2. sect 9 10 11. I shall further examine Sect. 9. he sets down eight propositions which if they were all granted yet they do not prove that point which is in question that an aâ—gument from analogy between meer positive ceremonies riâ—es or Sacraments is of validity so as that it may be concluded thus So it was in a ceremony of the Old Testament therefore it must be so in the New without any other precept or example therein Concerning the insufficiency thereof I have disputed so largely in the 2d part of this Review sect 2 3. as that I need to say no more here Nor doth any thing Mr. C. brings concerning the fulness of the Scripture Christ or the Apostles arguing prove such kind of arguing good in meer positive rites however matters of faith and manners are determined and proved by them from the Old Testament Nor should it bee granted as it is not that there is the same main ground of Circumcision and Baptism yet would it follow the rule of the one is a rule about the other without the like institution Yet what Mr. C. hath set down as the main ground that God would once have his Covenant of grace which he means p 201. of the very Covenant of saving grace not of any meer outward Covenant to be to the whole Church and Church seed and the rest of his hypotheses pag. 195. are so fully shewed to bee mistakes in this Review that I think it needless actum agere And for the tenth section in which he makes a tedious paraphrase and dictates many things without proof concerning Col. 2.10 11 12. they proceed upon the mistakes above shewed as if the Apostle answered this objection If Gentile believers have not an initiatory seal for them and their children they should not bee so compleat as the Jewes in outward Ordinances and that the Apostle answers that they have Baptism in stead of Circumcision Heâ— himself more truly saith pag. 199. That Baptism is named Col. 2.12 as an outward mean whereby bee inchurched Gentiles especially come ordinarily to have communion with Christ and to be compleat in him and therefore not in outward Ordinances nor by Baptism can it bee said wee are compleat in outward ordinances sith himself makes it onely the initiatory seal but compleatness is not in the enjoyment of the initiatory onely but of all ordinances As for what hee saith Section eleven for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision that it is sufficient to prove it that they agree in their common Author Sacramental nature and end which yet is false the answer is good that these things prove it not sith there are the same or more parities of Baptism and the Passeover and more disparities between Baptism and Circumcision which are sufficient to shew that the command concerning the one is not a command concerning the other For iâ— the command bind to baptize infants it binds onely to baptize males at eight dayes old and not afore nor is it any answer to say The command of Circumcision binds in the substantials of it though not in the circumstantials â—or first if the command bind it binds in every point as well as in one 2. The state of infancy is as much a circumstance as the eighth day 3. In the command of Circumcision I know not any thing which may bee termed substantial unless hee mean the act of cutting off the fore-skin of the flesh which hee will not have us tied â—o for then wee must not baptize our infants but circumcise them As for what hee speaks of the command to seal with an initiatory seal of the Covenant indefinite believers and their children it is a meer figment as hath been before shewed There is nothing else that I conceive needfull to be added in this place I go on to finish the rest SECT LXXXII Notwithstanding Mr. Cs. allegations of Acts 2.38 39. 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11 16 â—â— Mark 10.14 Acts 15.10 Matth. 28.19 the N. T. appearâ— to be silent about Mr. Cs. additional promise and infants Baptism HAving more largely noted the unproved dictates and mistakes of Mr. Carter hitherto I shall be briefer in the rest â—o what he saith pag. 81 82 83 84. there needs no more to bee said but this that the blessing upon posterity which Mr. C imagines mâ—ght have been signified though adult persons onely had been circumcised we have plain Scriptures which warrant us to alter circumcision wholly and abolish iâ— besides which we know no other command Genâ—7 â—7 9 the texts Acts 8.12 Gal. 3 27 28. do as plainly shew that Baptism is to be of none but believers and that but adulâ— persons are to 〈◊〉 bapâ—ized â—s that women are to be baptized iâ— Circumcision were a privâ—ledge Acts 7.8 we have abundant warrant to take it away nor doth the text Rom 11 29. hinder it which is not meant of outward priviledges which are common to elect and reprobate as the priviledge of Circumcision was but of saving grace to wit election and effectual calling and therefore is palpably abused by Mr. C. to prove that God takes not away the outward priviledge from his people now which was by circumcision we justly require a precept or example in the N. T to warrant infant Baptism no command of a meer positive right of the Old Testament being a rule to us about a meer positive right of the new as is fully proved by me in the 2d part of this Review Sect. 2 3. What Mr. C. saith pag. 85 86 87 88 89. That the N. T. is not altogether silent in this matter because of Peters words Acts 2.38 39. is false For neither is there a word Acts 2.38 39. of Mr. Cs. imagined additional promise of making every believer a blessing so as to cast ordinarily elect children on elect parents nor that the application of the initial seal is to signifie this promise nor that the application of it to infants is of the substance of this Covenant nor that the command Gen. 17.9 is yet a command that lieth upon Abrahams spiritual seed now in the New Testament nor that Baptism is now in the room of Circumcision and is the very same in substance for us nor if Mr. Cs. exposiâ—ion were granted would any of these follow but the contrary For first if the promise bee the same wiâ—h that vers 17.
Pemble vind Fidei sect 2. c. 3. sect 4. c. 1 2. alledging the Apostles words concerning Abraham who had not to glory before God nor was justified by works Rom. 4.1 2 c. And me thinks Mr. Carters next words contradict his former when he saith Our state and condition as subjects of his Kingdome dependeth not upon our keeping the Law but upon free grace in Christ by faith But of this by the way That which he alledgeth about the term Gods house 1 Tim. 3.15 2 Cor. 6.16 and separate Act. 13.2 2 Cor. 6.17 that we cannot understand them without the Old Testament though it were true yet proves no more but this that in explaining the meaning of words allusive to things there described the Old Testament is necessary but not that which is to be proved that in observing the rites of the N. T. we are to fetch rules and commands by way of Analogy from the ritual commands of the old Mr. C. adds p 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112. something more about the Texts 1 Cor. 7.14 Rom. 11.24 Mar. 10.14 Acts 15.10 Mat. 28.19 which having been so largely handled in the former parts of this Review I need onely to refer the Reader thither Yet I add it is but said without any proof that 1 Cor. 7.14 that children are termed holy because they come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. That which God blesseth he sanctifieth and separateth from that which is common or unclean For 1. there 's not a word brought to shew that ever any child is in Scripture termed holy by reason of such an indefinite promise to believing parents 2. Nor that the scope analysis allusion in the Text leads to such an exposition 3. Nor doth it follow that because God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath day therefore what God blesseth he sanctifieth God blessed Noah and his sons Gen. 9.1 yet all of them were not sanctified yea many Texts of Scripture apply blessings to unsanctified persons Psal. 107.38 Ierem. 12.1 much less is it true that who is termed holy or sanctified is blessed the unbeliever is in the text sanctified as the children holy yet not blessed 4. That this exposition is farre from the Apostles scope and arguing is so largely demonstrated in the first part of this Review and elsewhere that I judge it surperfluous to refute further these unprooved dictates heere I deny not that the Jews Rom. 11.24 are termed natural branches by birth according to the Covenant of God with Abraham the Gentiles the wild Olive by nature as neglected by God yet it is not true that ever the Gentiles ingraffed are made natural branches sith they never descend from Abraham the root by natural generation and though it bee true they enjoy saving graces which the believing Jews had called v. 17. the fatness of the Olive tree yet it is not true that the Gentile believers children enjoy the outward priviledges the Jews had by birth or are any of them ingraffed and partakers of the Olive tree but the elect and believers or that they are to be accounted holy by us till God hath purified their hearts by faith Acts. 15.9 And as we cannot say certainly any infant of a believer is inherently holy so neither can we say they are any of them holy as separated to God and to bee received into Church relation till they profess the faith such promise and purpose of election as Mr. C. imagins being no where to be found and if it were it is not sufficient to make them relatively holy in Church relation without profession of faith by each person so accounted there being no rule whereby we are to baptize any but disciples upon their own profession so judged no not though God had made such a covenant to each believer as Mr. C. imagins But we are to baptize persons who profess the faith though wee know not them to be inherently holy or in the Covenant of grace Mr. Cs. other reason pag. 103. Why such children are by the Apostle called holy because they are not onely within the Covenant of Abraham but also are appointed of God to be a subject recipient of the seal of that Covenant is another unproved dictate and refuted by the same reasons by which the former is refelled What Mr. C. urgeth against my sense of holy that is legitimate 1 Cor. 7.14 that it had been but affirming the thing is shewed to be false in the first part of this Review sect 16. And it is false which he imagins that the Apostle thus reasoned that after my exposition except one of the married couple be believer their children are bastards or that he â—scribed the sanctification to the faith of the believer which and what else hee saith about the scruple from Ezra 10.11 and 9.12 is so fully answered in the first part of this Review sect 11 c. to the end of the Book that mee thinks Mr. C. should afore hee had printed his Sermons have viewed them and not thus have printed these stale objections often answered without shewing the insufficiency of the answers if hee meant candidly as one that endeavoured to clâ—er the truth But Mr. C. takes notice of this objection against the basis of his building that upon this account not onely children of believers but also nations must be reputed holy because the promise is that believers shall bee blessings also unto nations To this he answers The case is not the same for children are immediately under this word of blessing in the family relation as the people of God in the Church are immediately under that blessing which the Lord commandeth out of Sion But as for nations they are under it in a remote capacity by means of what the Saints are in their families and in the Church Therefore although such as are of the Church and the children also of such families are holy yet it followeth not that therefore the nation should be holy Ref. I reply the objection in form stands thus They which come under the word of blessing from God in as much as that word was confirmed not onely unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. must be reputed holy This is the effect of Mr. Cs. words p. â—04 and the main ground of all his discourse for infant Baptism I subsume But nations yea all nations come under the word of bâ—essing from God in as much as that word was not onely confirmed unto Abraham but also to all believers Gen. 22.17 18. 12.2 3. and if the word families bee taken as Mr. C. seems to take it for housholds and all housholds then the same objection is concerning all in housholds servants wives as well as children they come under the bleâ—â—ing according to Mr. Cs. exposition Ergo according to Mr. Cs. arguing and exposition
the practise of the Gospel worship but onely baptized And so Mr. Cs. answer is a strengthening of the argument Enough in answer to Mr. C. being unwilling to make more exceptions on passages which need correction why I have said so much the reason is given sect 77. SECT LXXXIII Interest in the Covenant gave not title to Circumcision as Mr. M. in his 4th conclusion would have it IN the Defence of his 4th and 5th concl against my Examen Mr. M. saith he will contract and accordingly I shall be brief in my reply He grants the order of circumcising infants is repealed as I answered in examining his 4th concl but would have it added that by Gods order Baptism succeeds in the room of it which I have refuted Then upon my saying that Circumcision was not a seal of the spiritual part of the Covenant he censures this as pure Anabaptism leaving out injuriously my limitation to all that were circumcised which if fairly added had cleared me and perhaps if the so called Anabaptists had been rightly understood they had been found as innocent as my self in this thing I see enough in Paedobaptists dealing with me to shew how great likelihood there is that the words of the Anabaptists in Germany were perverted Mr. M. p. 180 181. excepts against me for saying that Ishmael and Esau had no part in the Covenant denies that Ishmael had no part in it when he himself grants that they did never partake of the spiritual graces of the Covenant which is all one with that which I say that the Covenant of grace was not made to them they had no part in it For sure they to whom the Covenant of grace is made and have part in it are all partakers of the spiritual graces of the Covenant or else God keeps not his promise and for this I bring Gen. 17.19 20 21. Rom. 9.6 7 8. Gal. 4.28 29. though I needed not having Mr. Ms. own confession and therefore it is most false he saith I bring not one shadow of a proof for what I say But Mr. M. thinks to maintain his speech that Ishmael had part in the Covenant in that he was reckoned by circumcision to belong to the Covenant and obliged to seek after the spiritual part of it to have his heart circumcised and to believe in the Messiah that was to come of Abrahams seed Answ. 1. It is contrary to Gen. 7.19 20 21. to say that Ishmael by Circumcision did belong to the Covenant it runs upon this palpable mistake that every one that was circumcised had thereby the Covenant sealed to him 2. Those that were uncircumcised all the people of the world were obliged to seek after the spiritual graces of the Covenant to be holy to believe yet this doth not prove they had a part in the Covenant and therefore this answer of Mr. M. is frivolous And so likewise is that which he saith in answer to my words not rightly set down my words were not right to Evangelical promises or any other benefit that no benefit of the Covenant was the proper reason I added and adequate why these or those were circumcised but onely Gods precept though Gods command was the cause of the existence of the duty of Circumcision yet the Covenant of grace was the motive to it and these two are well consistent together In which 1. he shews not whose motive it was Gods or mans If he mean it was Gods to command it it is nothing to the purpose to shew right to the Covenant of grace to have been the proper adequate reason of the persons to be circumcised if mans motive it is false whether we understand it of â—he circumcised who were infants and therefore had no motive to it but were passive onely or the circumciser for in â—brahams circumcising Ishmael Mr. M. saith I have given a very good instance to prove that some may receive the outward sign of the Covenant and a vâ—sible â—â—anding in the Church though he who administers the seal might by revelation know the inward grace is wanting Were his answer granâ—ed yet it proves not the contrary to my speech but confirms it though this point be one of the hinges on which his first main argument turns For iâ— it be true that the adequate reason oâ— peâ—sons circumcising was not right to the Evangelical promises or other benefit in the Covenant but Gods precâ—pt onely then the pillar of Mr. Ms argument fâ—lls to the ground All that are in the covenant are to be sealed it being onely true thus All in the Covenant whom God haâ—h commanded 〈◊〉 sealed are to be sealed What he saith after that I grant what is in controversie because I grant men may have a visible membership in the Church though they be not elected or sanctified it is alike frivolous it being never in controversie but whether any may be said to be in or under the Covenant of grace or to have the Covenant of grace made to them who are non elect and never sanctified That which Mr. M. p. 182. calls a piece of odd Divinity that Circumcision should seal righteousness to them who never are circumcised nor reputed so nor capable of being circumcised nor might lawfully be circumcised being understood as I express it of Abrahams personal Circumcision is the Apostles express Divinity Rom. 4.11 12. whose scope say New England Elders in answer to the 3d. and 4th position p. 65. rightly in that place is not to define a Sacrament nor to shew what is the proper adequate subject of the Sacrament but to prove by the example of Abraham that a sinner is justified before God not by works but by faith c. Nor is this any more odd Divinity then Mr. Ms. who asserts women virtually circumcised in the males That which he saith that visible professours have a visible right to the spiritual part of Circumcision I conceive false For though they had a right to Circumcision or Baptism which they might receive of men yet they had no right at all to forgiveness of sins justification adoption salvation which are onely from God and onely true believers had right to That which he saith p. 182. that Circumcision was given the Jews in reference to their Church state not in reference to their civil state is not true but said upon a mistake as if the Church state and Civil were different in the Jewish Commonwealth That which he confesseth that the formal reason of their being circumcised was the command of God is enough to shew that interest in the Covenant did not give right to Circumcision but the command of God and therefore without shewing a command for infant Baptism this is no good argument they are in the Covenant therefore to be baptized which enervates all Mr. Ms. dispute But he adds The Covenant of grace or their Church state was the motive to it and the thing it related to and this fully answers the objection for it was
in the giving the Law there was something of the Covenant of works made with Adam in paradise then it was a Covenant of works this he must grant unless he will have a mixt Covenant partly of grace and partly of works which he opposeth in his answer to me about Abrahams Covenant But in the giving that Law according to Mr. M there was something of the Covenant of workes made with Adam in Paradise Ergo. 6. That which God finds fault with is not the Covenant of grace but accâ—rding to Mr. M. God finds fault with it Ergo. 7. That which is termed the first Covenant in opposition to this Covenant is not the Covenant of grace But such according to Mr. M. is that at Mount Sinai Ergo. 8. The Covenant of grace is the better Covenant But such was not that at Mount Sinai according to Mr. M. Ergo. And truely I finde so many Protestant Divines terming the Covenant at Mount Sinai the Covenant of works Perkins on Gal. 4.24 Pemble of Justification sect 4. c. â— Cotton in his way of Congregational Churches cleered p. 46 47. however in some respect hee will have it to have been a Covenant of grace yet to the carnal seed â—aith it was a Covenant of workes and proves it out of Paul And adds And so have the chiefest German Divines as well as Piscator and Polanus tâ—ken the Covenant on mount Sinai to bee a Covenant of works See Piscator Ezek. 16. observat ult in v. 60. and 62. and Polanus ibidem and Synt. Th. l. 6 c. 33. Pisc. observ e v. 6. Heb. 8. Dicson paraph. Gal 4.21 22 23 24. Hebr 8.6 9. Becman Th Exercit. 5. p. 67 De saedere operum aut legis legimus Exod 19.5 Deut. 5.2 1 Reg. 8.21 Jer. 31.32 Heb 8.8 9 10. To whom I add my Antagonists Mr. Geree vindic vindic p. 9. Mr. Baillâ—e in his Anabaptism pag. 141. and might do many more if it were necessary This is enough to shew my doctrine to have been unjustly termed most erroneous by Mr. M. beeing Pauls Mr. Ms. and others named and therefore rightly owned by me To my words Exam. p. 10 The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter v. 6 The ministration of death written and ingraven in stones so glorious that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance which glory was to be done away v. 7. The ministration of condemnation v 9. which I suppose you do not understand of the Covenant of grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Mr. M answers thus Sir I wonder at your confidence in it the Reader will easily discern that the whole scope of that Chapter clearly holds forth the preheminence of the Ministery of the Gospel above the Ministery of Moses his vailed Ceremonies belike then with you Moses Ceremonies were the Covenant of works Answ. I wonder that a man of such note should wonder at that of which the reason is given and should take upon him to defend his own Sermon and yet pass by my reason against his allegation without rehearsal or answer to it In form it stands thus That which was the letter which killeth written in Tables of stone opposite to the New Testament and the spirit which giveth life the ministration of death of condemnation by Moses was the Law or Covenant of works for it is onely the Covenant of works not that of grace how darkly soever delivered of which these things can be said But such was the Law or Covenant at Mount Sinai Ergo. 'T is true it was the Apostles scope to hold forth the preheminence of the Ministry of the Gospel but not barely above the Ministry of Moses vailed Ceremonies for the Apostle prefers it before the Ministry of the Letter written and ingraven in stone v. 3 7. which was the moral Law but above the Ministry of the whole Law which comprehending all the commands Mosaical promulged Covenant-wise and not singly Moses ceremonies are by me termed the Covenant of works and of this I am still confident Mr. M. skips over his impertinent allegation of Gal. 4.1 c. and grants 1 Pet. 2.9 the spiritual part to belong onely to the invisible Church of which he denies not the whole v. to be meant but onely tels me the whole nation of the Jews who had the honour to be termed holy the children of God Deut. 14.1 to have the adoption Rom. 9.4 were not inwardly holy or effectually called which I readily grant nor need I prove that Rom. 9.4 Deut. 14.1 were not priviledges which the visible Church of the Jewes enjoyed having not denied it but do expresly grant of Rom. 9.4 that it speaks of peculiar priviledges of the Jews and prove thence the Jewes had some priviledges above us and that the want of some priviledges they had may bee recompensed by some priviledges wee have and thence gathered that is a feeble reason from the Jewish priviledge of infant Circumcision to prove infant Baptism yet nothing that Mr. M brings shews 1 Pet. 2.9 to bee meant of any other then the elect nor that believers priviledges of the Covenant of grace are enlarged What he saith that the comfortable manner of administration and baptism are enlarged beyond Circumcision to females and all nations is granted but this groves not priviledges of the Covenant of grace to be enlarged to each believer now although there are more believers now And for Gal 3.28 the words there is neither male nor female are not added to shew Baptism to be administred to whom Circumcision was not for then neither bond nor free should be added for the same reason which had not been right for bondmen were circumcised formerly as well as then baptized But to shew a general equality of all believers in Christ and therefore that passage is meant onely of true believers Having shewed the impertinency of Mr. Ms. allegations for his 5th conclusion I answered the argument drawn thence for infant Baptism thus 1. It is no good argument God gave such a priviledge to the Jewes Ergo we must have such a priviledge too without Gods institution but arrogant presumption to claim it 2. That God gave many peculiar priviledges to the Jewes which we have not as that Abraham was the father of the Faithfull Mary the Mother of CHRIST no family out of which CHRIST came but Abrahams no nation that God hath promised after many hundred years rejection to re-ingraff besides the Jewes This Mr. M. endeavoured to prevent in his Sermon by saying These were personal priviledges belonging to some particular persons not the whole Church of the Jewes nor from the Covenant but that to have infants belong to his Church and to have the initial seal are and if that we have it not for ours the
visible Church how was the Eunuch baptized Acts 8 And if the covenant of grace nakedly considered giveth a person which is actually in it a remote right to the initiatory seal but it doth not give an immediate right thereto for so the covenant of grace as invested with Church covenant onely giveth this proximate right to that seal God being the God of order will have that his Church seal to be attained in a way of order as of old strangers might not be circumcised but with some submission to that Church order explicitely or implicitely and so now and the order be as Mr. C in the 5th section determines to be observed of communion in breaking bread after they were baptized how do those of N. E. admit to breaâ—ing of bread those who who onely as born in a Parish were baptized in infancy without another baptism That either Matth. 28.19 20. or any where else the orderly and ordinary dispensation of the seal is committed to the visible Church is more then I finde nor do I know it necessary to right order that believers must be of a particular visible Church afore they be baptized If Catechumini in covenant and visible Church estate might bee hindered from Baptism for trial for a time much more should infants of whom we have no knowledge concerning their future or present estate be in prudence put off from Baptism till there be some trial of thâ—m if their right were as Mr. C. doth though falsly imagine Sect. 7. Mr. C. speaks thus And because in this particular some stress of the main case is put 1. I shall endeavour yet fuâ—ther to confiâ—m it that covenanâ— interest carrieth a main stroak in point of application of that seal to persons interested therein and not uncapable thereof in any bodily respect Answ. This proposition being that in which some stress or as I conceive the whole stress of the main case is put should have been delivered more clearly and confirmed more fully but as now it is it is delivered ambiguously and so is fitter to delude a Reader then to instruct him That seal which was last mentioned was Baptism but the proofs following shew that he meant it of Circumcision and as if there were the same reason of Circumcision and of Baptism which neither he nor any Paedobaptist ever proved what is said of Circumcision is by him meant of Baptism and so the Reader merely mocked The application of Baptism or Circumcision may either refer to Gods applâ—ing it by way of command or mans by way of administration and in this I think Mr. Cs. speeches are delusory sometimes meant of Gods application by way of command and sometimes of the administrators act in circumcising or baptizing The phrase of carrying the main stroak is likewise ambiguous and so delusory it being uncertain whether it carry the main stroke with God as his motive to appoint it or with the administratour as his rule and warrant to do it And when he terms it the main stroak it had been requisite hee should tell whether there be not some other thing which carries a stroak if not the main yet so great as that without it the application of the seal is not warrantable as profession of faith by the person to whom it is to bee applied Hee might have understood by my Examen which he had to answer that I took it a great fault in Mr. M. that hee did not more distinctly tell what hee meant by the Covenant being in covenant which hee speaks of infants of believers And sure if Mr. C. had meant to deal rightly as one that sought truth and to shew my errour he should have cleared what Covenant hee meant inward or outward the Covenant of Gospel grace purely delivered or the mixt Covenant made with Abraham Gen. 17. what the Church covenant is how the Covenant of grace is invested with it when a Church is a political visible body how a Church covenant is the form of it who and what persons and how they are interested in it whether by Gods promise their own faith or profession or anothers or by the Churches admission All which or at least many of them are requisite to bee distinctly declared that a reader may clearly understand his meaning and so examine his proof And whether the exception of incapacity in any bodily respect be meant onely because of the females circumcision or thereby infants are excepted from Baptism who have not the use of their tongues to profess the faith of Christ and are not well able to brook that dipping or plunging which for all Mr. Cs. scriblings is and will be found the onely way of baptizing appointed by Christ is uncertain This were a sufficient reason for me to answer no further to this proposition but to wait till his Bill be mended Yet I shall examine his proofs of this which should be his meaning if he spake to his purpose That the interest which a person though an infant hath to the Covenant of grace in that he is a believers child by vertue of the promise of God to a believer and his seed when that believer is a member of a visible political Church by Church covenant explicit or implicit is a sufficient warrant to that visible political Church to admit and to the Elder to baptize that infant without any other revelation of God or profession of the infant Let 's now see what Mr. C. brings for proof of this First saith he then it is the ground-work given to the general Law about an initiatory Covenant duty scil application of some injoyned initiatory seal and therefore must be of like force in the particular branches and ways of such initiatory sealing as circumcision and baptizing Answ. Such a general Law is a mere fiction and what is meant by the ground-work of it is uncertain Gen. 17.9 10. is no other Law but about circumcision the word rendred therefore may bee otherwise translated if it were the onely reading yet the sense might be this because I make this Covenant thou shalt therefore circumcise thy males to keep it in remembrance or to assure thee and thy posterity that I will perform it But that there is any such intimation as if the persons circumcised were circumcised as and for their interest in that Covenant is a mere dream often refuted by mee much more is it a dotage to assert that according to a persons interest in that Covenant or a part of it as Mr. C. conceives so they have right to Baptism in the Christian church Secondly saith Mr. C. the Covenant in such sort invested with Church covenant now it is the form of a political visible Church body giving therefore both a Church-being as I may say as natural forms do a natural being and withall the priviledge of a member of such a church-body suitable to its memberly estate as if this of the Church initiatory seal even to the least member thereof although they are not
Besides the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a covenant and Church seal is covenant and Church interest Hence called by the name of covenant when yet it is but a sacramental sign and seal of it Gen. 17.13 Act. 7.8 that is first hâ—ld out and sealed as the convoy of all other desired good 2 Pet. 1.4 But especially in that initiatory seal the signation of the covenant is of more considerable weight then the external symbole ceremony and circumstance either of cutting or washing absolutely or relatively considered If washing of a person in the name of the Trinity be a clearer and easier symbole then that of cutting the flesh yet not of such weight as is the covenant sealed both by the one and the other And to shew that the covenant is the main thing considerable therein hence it is that the covenant is first propounded as the ground-work of the commandment it self as of Circumcision so of Baptism and much more of the application of either to any in covenant Gen. 17.9 10 11. Therefore scil because I have said I will be your God I command you to do thus and thus not because I have commanded you that I therefore promise to do this for you or do you thus and thus at my command and then on therefore I will do so and so for you Answ After the rest of his dictates he here tels us the main in the initiatory seal to be attended is the covenant which I grant but deny that it follows therefore that the rule which the administrator is to observe according to which he is to administer it is the persons interest in the Covenant so as that he must administer it to all and onely those who are in Covenant or to whom the promâ—se is made by God For besides the many reasons to the contrary even concerning Circumcision before given Mr. Cs. own reason is against him For if the main in the initiatory seal to be firstly and properly attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal is Covenant and Church interest and therefore infants in Covenant to be circumcised and baptized by the same reason infants in Covenant are to be admitted to the Passeover and to have the Lords Supper sith they are seals they are Covenant and Church seals infants have Covenant and Church interest in the initiatory seal these things are to be attended as it is a Covenant and Church seal and therefore in every Covenant and Church seal as well as the initiatory As for what he saith about Gen. 17.9 10 11. though I have sundry times observed that the reading v. 9. therefore is not necessary yet omitting that exception I grant what he saith of that Text but withal note 1. that the command is inferred not onely from the promise to be their God but also from the promise of the land of Canaan v. 8. and therefore it might as well follow They to whom God will give the land of Canaan are to have the initiatory seal as that they to whom he promiseth to be God 2. That which is said Gen. 17.9 10 11. is onely of circumcision 3. If it were granted that the covenant is the groundwork of the command it self as of circumcision so of baptism yet it follows not much more of the application of either to any in covenant For though the covenant were Gods reason why he would appoint circumcision yet that 's no rule to us but his command onely a reason of the will of the commander is not always a direction about the command certainly not about each point in the command as Mat. 28.18 it follows not All power is given to me therefore preach and baptize all over whom power is given to me Besides in this very thing the covenant could be no direction whom to circumcise ordinarily sith ordinarily the circumciser could not know to whom in particular the promises whether Evangelical or domestical did belong when they were to circumcise them Yea though Abraham knew Ishmael had no covenant interest there being no promise made to him in it but the contrary declared Gen 17.19 20 21. yet he was to circumcise him and did so The like may be said of Esau and others Mr. C. adds So the Gospel prophesie and promise is prefaced and put in the preamble to that injunction of their baptism by John Luk. 3.3 4 5 6 c. Answ. It is true that the prophesie of John Baptists comming and work and of Christs comming Isa. 40.3 4 5. which I acknowledge to be a Gospel promise are set down as the warrant of Johns preaching the Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins but this doth noâ— prove that this was his rule in baptizing to baptize every one even infants and those onely who had this interest in the Covenant of grace that to them and each of them God promised remission of sins Yea sith Johns Baptism is termed the Baptism of repentance it is clear he required repentance of the baptized as the antecedent to his Baptism and therefore not barely such Covenant interest as Mr. C. ascribes to all infants of believers onely in profession He goes on thus Hence the Gospel and so the Covenant of grace held out as grounding Baptism Act. 2.38 39. And childrens Covenant right was held out as one branch of that Gospel as we proved and from the same principle that they were also to be sealed by Baptism yea albeit the Apostles urged repentance yet the seal is propounded as to the promise Peter said be baptized for the promise is to you And this was no meer moral motive but a Scriptural groundword inforcing it as it was a Scriptural groundwork virtually injoyning and requiring them to repent for the promise is to you Answ. Hence should if there were any good sence in Mr. Cs. speech refer to something precedent from whence that which he speaks is derived which I discern not but a dark way of dictating fitting such as love to puzzle not to inform a reader It is before largely shewed that neither childrens Covenant right external from parents faith hath been held out by Mr. C. as one branch of the Gospel sect 44. of this part of my Review nor that barely from this principle they were to be baptized but that repentance in each person to be baptized is made the antecedent to Baptism sect 22 23 and elsewhere That Peter said not as Mr. C. sets down his words is apparent from the Text Act. 2.38 39. that the promise is urged as a motive to those to whom Peter spake to do their duty of repenting and being baptized is so plain as that Dr. Thamas Goodwin upon the reading the first part of my Review sect 5. did acknowledge it and it is proved so sect 21. here and elsewhere Nor doth Mr. C. here or elsewhere shew it to be any other Scripture groundwork then as a motive to the baptized each of them first to
repent and then to be baptized no rule by which the baptizer is to administer it or the baptized to claim it as his right without his personal repentance and declaration of his faith in Christ into whose name he is to be baptized He adds So Act. 10. Peter saith there is no let to their Baptism and thereof he maketh the visibility of that Covenant grace although common to reprobates also in those first times his groundwork gathering thereby that they were not as formerly prophane unclean and outlaries from the Covenant as Ephes. 2.11 12. but clean and nigh as they themselves were Ans. It is true there was no let to Cornelius his Baptism and those other who were with him yet not meerly because of their extraordinary gifts but because those gifts were manifested by their glorifying God and as may be gathered from Act. 11.17 18. their glorifying God contained expressions of faith in Christ and repentance which whosoever should do as they did it is without doubt they should be baptized But Mr. Cs. Covenant interest of infants who make no shews of faith and repentance as they did Act. 10.46 yeelds no warrant for their Baptism He goes on Washing of regeneration is not grounded on any thing in us or without us so much as on Gods grace and so Covenant favour Tit. 3.5 Answ. It is true this is the inward impulsive cause why God regenerates but Gods grace and Covenant favour is no rule to a Minister to baptize by sith it is an unknown thing which agrees not with the property of a rule Hence also saith Mr. C. by Baptism persons are not sealed into any thing in them so much as into the name of the Father Son and Spirit even into the Covenant name of grace whereby he is known and into Covenant fellowship with the blessed Trinity to which every baptized person prove he elect or reprobate yet is thus externally sealed Answ. The terming of baptizing sealing and the name of the Father Son and Spirit the Covenant name of grace are Mr. Cs. new-minted phrases if this be his meaning that every person rightly baptized whether he be elect or reprobate is sealed by God that is in Baptism assured of fellowship with the Trinity according to the new Covenant of Gospel grace I deny it if onely that he professeth his communion to be with them I grant it but this proves not that Covenant interest of infants who make no such profession intitles them to Baptism Again saith he That fellowship with Christ as head of the visible Church by the Spirit in the judgement of verity or charity such it is all but Covenant grace and blessing Answ. Be it so yet what this is to prove such fellowship to be a rule to baptize infants I see not Of old saith Mr. C. the consequent cause of the seal was grace in them and theirs but the antecedent cause was Gods Covenant grace to them and on them Gen. 17.7 8 9. Deut. 30.6 and so now that part of Abrahams Covenant was not then appliable to infants scil walk before me c. but yet that was then appliable I will be their God I will circumcise their hearts and that sufficed them as Deut. 30. the Analogy holds now Answ. What may be said to be a consequent cause I do not yet conceive the rule of Logick I have learned is that the cause is before the effect Yet what ever it be Mr. C. means though it might suffice for Circumcision it doth not for Baptism nor is that to be regulated by Analogy of Circumcision as is shewed in the second part of this Review sect 2 3. Yet again In a word the seal is a seal not of nor to the commandment but covenant this therefore is the main and principal in the application of it Answ. If Baptism be a seal it seems to me not a seal of or to the commandment or covenant but the profession of the baptized and therefore this is the main and principal in the application of it Yet more It is the covenant which hath the main instrumental force in the fruit of the initiatory seal and the application of it Ephes. 5.25.26 and why shall not the external interest in the covenant have chief influence into the external interest as well of the application of the initiatory seal Answ. I understand not what fruit of the initiatory seal he means nor what is the external interest in the Covenant the word Ephes. 5.25 26. Is meant of the word preached which is not instrumental to infants for any santification or cleansing their meant The want of Gods appointment is the reason of not applying Baptism to infants Once more By external interest in the Covenant persons so interested come to have external interest at least to the final causes of Baptism as Covenant mercy and blessing the Spirit Christ resurrection c. Tit. 3 8. and 1. Cor 12.12 13. 1. Pet. 3.21 And therefore as well so farre inrighted in the initiatory seal of it whether they are adult or infants Answ. 1. External interest in the covenant external interest in the final causes of Baptism are notions I understand not 2. Covenant mercy and blessing the spirit Christs resurrection are not final cause of Baptism for then when the end of Baptism is attained they should be effects of Baptism for the end in intention is the effect in execution But this is too absurd 3. An inrighting so far in the initiatory seal which intimates a man may have an inrighting so far to such a measure and no further is another new notion I understand not 4. If Mr. Cs. antecedent had sense or truth yet the consequence is to be denied no other interest external is inrighting to Baptism but that which is according to the institution Matth. 28.19 discipleship or profession of faith To the 8th Sect. I answer by denying that the Covenant priviledge of grace Evangelical hath such distinction of principal and less principal counter parties as Mr. means C. unless he understand by Christ the principal and the elect and true believers the less principal as Gal. 3.16 and that the Covenant priviledges of grace Evangelical belong to any other then the elect yet I grant the Covenant Gen. 17. and many priviledges of Divine grace which were not Evangelical did belong to many of the Israelites who made no good use thereof The Covenant Evangelical was never sealed personally to Ishmael That which Mr. C. dictates without proof about the everlasting covenant and the initial seal in its generical nature is answered here sect 80. and the point about the ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed sect 50 c. and the non-inclusion of infants Matth. 28.19 under the term nation is shewed there and in the second part of this Review sect 9. The position of Mr. Cs. sect 9. may be granted though Acts 2.38 39. make nothing for it Sect. 10. Mr. C. proves nothing but that parents were to
exhorted to be baptised who are under the same Covenant yet not without repentance and faith foregoing their Baptism witâ—out which the promise warrants not Baptism There is no such command Gen. 17.7 8. that all these in Covenant should be marked with the initiatory seal nor is Baptism instituted in place of Circumciâ—â—on and if it were yet mâ—re is needful to warrant infant baptism There is as plain precept Acts 2.38 8.36 37. Mark 16.16 Matth. 28.19 against inâ—ant Baptism as is against infant Communion 1 Cor. 11.28 Wee have good consequences out of the word against infant Baptism without arguing from the Covenant of grace which Mr. Rutherfurd may see in the 2d part of this Review sect 5 and none against the Holy Ghost but from him That the promises of the Covenant of grace are expresly to infants of the New Testament is more then I find Acts 2.39 or elsewhere Dipping in rivers need not be onerous and may be without danger to women with child Virgins some sorts of diseased persons in winter in cold countries and it will require more strength in dispute then either Mr. Baillee or Mr. Baxter have shewed or I finde yet in Mr. Rutherfurd to prove dipping in rivers though Baptism be not necessary to be done in rivers to be against the word the second third and fourth Commandements And against sprinkling or perfusion instead of Baptism there is so much said in my Addition to the Apology against Mr. Baillee Mr. Rutherfurds Colleague and delivered to Mr. Rutherfurd himself and since printed with a Letter to him as is for ought I know yet unanswered All Mr. Rutherfurds talk pag. 98 99. that now infants of believers are casten out for no fault of the Covenant of grace and his aggravations thereof are to be taken for meer calumnies and since the printing of my Exâ—men there is reason to judge them to be thus wilfully vented by Mr. Rutherfurd and till he name the Anabaptists and cite the place I can take it for no other then a false accusation which he saith of the Anabaptists that they teach infants to be born without sin Mr. Rutherfurd dictates without proof pag. 100. that they were covenanting parents and believers that brought the little children Mark 10.13 14 that they were not diseased or possessed that he would have the whole spece of infants at all time â—o come to him and those infants might bee blessed as elect ones though no marks were given to parents or others whereby to discern elect children these being no direction for them to bring children to Christ under that notion It is false that Anabaptists rebuke persons that bring children to Christ as the disciples did Mar. 10.13 Or that Christ instates infants of believing parents as members of the visible Church What Mr. â—obbet hath said of that act of Christ is refelled Review part 2. sect 19. and that the Kingdome of God is that of glory is made good against Mr. Blake there sect 18 and not refused by me I know no absurdity in it to say Christ might bless infants of Pagans What designe Christ might have or had besides Mr. Rutherfurds conceived purpose to hold forth the common interest of the whole spece of infants within the visible Church is shewed there sect 17. against Mr. Baxter I do granâ— the blessing Mark 10.16 to be personal and the chiefest blessing beyond visible Churchmembership and though we finde not proof that Christ blessed the whole race of infants of covenanting parents yet it is false that we make them blessed onely as symboles of humility or that the blessing was some complemental salutation or that as Mr R. saith of Anabâ—ptists after hiâ— calumniating manner wee will have them without Christ and the Covenant and under the curse of God but grant that they were blessed with the blessing of the Covenant of grace and that many other infants are so Whether they were parents or believers in Christ as the Messiah who brought the children Matth. 19.13 is uncertain nor do I say or need I they had a saith grounded upon a possibility of election separated from the Covenant nor do I deny that infants have their share of salvation by the Covenant or that a covenanted seed is prophesied to be added to the Jews under the New Testament nor doth any thing I say infer that the children of believers under the New Testament must be a cursed seed yet there is none of the Texts Mr. Rutherfurd brings which proves a prediction that the natural seed of believers as such shall be blessed and in the Covenant of grace nor that their infant seed shall be visible Churchmembers in the Christian Church But they are all impertinently alledged some being meant of the Jews iâ—crease in Judâ—â— after their return from Babylon some of the effectual calling of the Gentiles and most of them so far cleared before that I count it needless to make answer to each of the Texts by themselves And Mr. Rutherfurds discourse is so loose and full of impertinencies and incoherencies that I shall onely animadvert on some passages till the whole bee brought to some distinct Scholastique form He tels us pag 168. That external covenanting goes before internal covenanting as the means before the end and the cause before the effect for faith comes by hearing of a sent preâ—cher Rom. â—0 14 and the preaching of the Gospel is a saving means of begetting a new heart and of a new spirit Hence 1. All must be first externally in covenant before they can be internally and really in covenant In which speech he seemâ— to conceive external covenanting to bee either preaching or hearing a preacher else his reason had been vain But what non-sense scribling is this to term preaching or hearing covenanting A person may and we may conceive some do preach and hear who never externally covenant Sure covenanting is promising but so is not either preaching or hearing And if Mr. Rutherfurds words be true no infant can be internally and really in Covenant who doth not preach or hear His talk is as vain Of the Lord being a God simply to some and no more but a God to them in regard of outward Church-priviledges but to others more then a God in truth and righteousness not to all as if God might be a God to some not in truth and righteousness or the being a God to his people contained not the greatest blessings contrary to Lu. 20.37 38. Heb. 11.16 His further talk pag. 109. from Matth. 19.14 is without proof and all shewed to be vain in the places before cited Though the houshold sometimes comprehend infants yet not so still nor Acts 16. as is shewed Review part 2. sect 20. Anabaptists neither do nor must grant if infants be in Covenant they ought to receive the seal of the Covenant If Rom. 11.16 be meant of holiness onely intentionally and not giving actual right to Baptism then the holiness there proves not infants to
wâ—ich is indeed sinful And so for confirmation by laying on of hand anointing wiâ—h oyl use of the signe of the cross setting up lights and many more it is frâ—quentâ—y shewed that they countenance no the Pâ—â—ish confirmation extream unction use of the signe of the cross lighting candles at noon day in their â—â—mples c. because they were in different mâ—nner and for different reasons and purposes then they are now used by them And indeed the discovery of the different reasons manner and end of rites used bâ— the Ancients from that they are now used is of greatest moment to shew the novelty of the Popish Prelatical Paedobaptists usages who have not onely quite departed from the Scripture but also from antiquity even in those things which the Ancients practised indeed but not as they do Secondly saith Dr. Homes he doth give another reason beside that of partaking of common grace namely 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it is better that they should be sanctified without a feeling of it then to depart without the seal So he thinks they are sanctified too in infancy as well as at riper years 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A reason also of this to us is Circumcision that was wont to be done on the 8th day c. Answ. 1 The first of these is no other then the partaking of common grace for to partake of the common grace is all one as to be sanctified onely with a little enlargement 2. The 2d is indeed rather a preventing of an objection that they could not be parâ—akers of the common grace without perceiving it rather then a further reason of baptizing them And the answer is from two examples one of curcumcision which was given to infants without the use of reason the other of the anoining or sprinkling the door posts whiâ—h were things insensitive bringing salvation to the first born which is such a woodden reason as Dr. Homes thought fit to let pass in this place Thirdly saith Dr. Homes Wee answer that all three reasons stand in force as well for all believers infants God putting them under the promise Gen. â—7 a for the infants that are in danger of death Answ. Whâ—tever force there is in the reasons which in my apprehension are frivolous to prove Dr Homes his opinion or practise yet sure in Nazianzens intent they are onely for the colouring over of the practise of infant baptism of any whether believers or unbelievers children onely in case of apparent danger of imminent death and not at all for countenancing baptizing of believers infants onely at all times as federally holy Fourthly saith Dr. Homes that Nazianzen urgeth divers divine reasons to him evincing for the baptism of infants in danger of death but for the delaying of others not in danger of deaâ—h he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I give my opinion â—he calls it his opinion And what is it That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such children should stay till three or four years old more or less And what is to be expected from children of that age more then from infants toward baptism For Nazianzen himself confesseth that though they may hear and answer some spiritual things yet they understand imperfectly But doth Nazianzen give us there any Scripture for this differing None Doth he give any reason Even in effect the same as for baptizing of infants in danger of death to wit that they may be sanctified in mind and body Answ. 1. T is true Nazianzen gives one reason for baptizing infants in case of danger of death which is the sanctifying them by it not divers reasons the examples of Circumcision and anointing the door pâ—sts being answers to an objection as I said before Now that reason is so far from being Divine that it is from a meer superstitious conceit as if the meer outward Baptism did sanctifie Nor is it the same reason in effect for differing baptism three or four years with that which hee gives for infant baptism in case of danger of death For though he supposeth in both Baptism sanctifies yet he takes infant Baptism to sanctifie onely the body the other to sanctifie body and mind He supposeth they may learn some spiritual thing though imperfectly and so the baptism may be a sign to them though obscure and there may be some memory of what is done though confused which though it be not as it should be yet it is better and more agreeable to Scripture then the infant Baptism where there is no signification to the baptized nor remembrance of it 2. Be it granted that Nazianzen expresseth but his opinion and that it betters not the thing much and his reasons not so right as they should have been there is in this passage this evident that infant Baptism was no tthen common as now nor upon such reasons as now nor approved of as now it is but out of the case of danger of death imminent apparently disswaded and consequently the present common infant baptism an innovation from what was in that age Dr. Hammond adds That Chrysostome in his Homily to the Neophyti hath these words For this cause i. e. because there be so many benefits of baptism there recited ten in number we baptise children though they have not sins and that he flourished in the beginning of the fift Age. Answ. Though finde in two Homilies one in the fifth the other in the sixth tome of Chrysostomes works of Eton print some speeches unto the newly inlightned or planted yet I finde not these words there nor any where else in any of his homilies Yet I deny not them to bee Chrysostomes finding them in Augustin tom 7. l. 1. against Julian the Pelegian ch 2. But perhaps if the words before were viewed it might be discerned whether the Baptism of little ones then used were onely in case of danger of death apparently imminent or without that case It is likely hee meant that infants or little children were baptized onely in case of danger of death imminent sith many of his Homilies express even that where these words cited were exhortations to the newly baptized and the relation of his life testifies that when hee was persecuted by the Empress and was about to baptize on the solemn festival in which Baptism was used the persons men and women that were to be baptized by him fled away naked being ready to be baptized upon his apprehension which shews they then baptized persons naked And the occasion of the speech as sâ—t down by Austin shews it was done upon the conceit of giving them grace which is manifest by the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause And the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also in the Greek shews there was mention of baptizing others then little children And in the same place Austin saith â—ohn Chrysostome held believed and taught this not onely that little children were not onely to be baptized but also to have the Eucharist or Lords Supper for without
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
differences about the title to it between Papists and Protestants and the ablest Protestants themselves 14. How they can make good the regularity of Church-constiâ—ution and the ordination of Elders who have no other baptism but that in infancy 15. How they can be free from the guilt of hardening souls in deadly presumption who avouch the Christianity of infants by natural birth and Infant baptism which is the great plea of ignorant and profane persons on which they rest 16. Whether it be not a signe of injustice and want of love to truth or adherence to a party in them that will read and hear what one party saith for Infant baptism and refuse to read or heâ—r what the opposâ—â—s say though they bring the plain institution of Christ and his Apostles practise for them 17. Whether it be not an unrighteous course to charge the miscariages of persons either dead or strangers on that doctrine or practise which countenanceth not them or to persons who are no way abettors of them becaus of agreement in one opinion 18. Whether division or Schism is not chiefly to be imputed to those who violently oppose inveigh against their Brethren for holding practising that which they conceive themselves bound to do by the plain command of Christ which their opposites do acknowledge 19. Whether such as impose Infan baptism on their Brethren who hold the faith and baptism confessâ—d to be from Christ and deal rigorously with them for not owning iâ— do not as the Papists who impose with cruelty their own addiâ—ions oâ— those who otherwise are not denied to hold thâ— true faith aâ—d practâ—sâ— 20. Whether such pretencâ—s as are made for Infant baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a sufficient plea for baptism and the imagined evil of Anabaptism can be a suâ—fâ—cient plea for any truly godly person to neglect that baptism which Christ hath so strictly commanded Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 the Apostles constantly practised And sith Mr. Baxter hath with so much earnestness ministred so many interrogatories to me I shall take the boldness to advise him to consider his own ways 1. In giving such a title to his book of Plâ—in Scripture proof of Infants baptism when there is not one text in all his Book which speaks plainly or obscurely for it yea it 's confessed by himself that it is not plainly determined in Scripture p. 3. and is so dark in Scripture that the controversie is become hard p. 301. 2. In his abusing so many texts of Scripture as he haâ—h done chiefly the institution of Bapâ—ism Matth. 28 19. for infant Baptism as if they were disciples appointed there to be baptized which is sufficiently refuted by himself in many places of Baptism p. 299 300. of the right to Sacraments from p. 91 to 96. 3. In coyning a new title to Baptism by the profession of parents or pro parents of which the Scripture is altogether silent 4. In his devising â—n ordinancâ— of infants visible membership in the Christian Church of which there is no foot step in all the Bible 5. In his many years clamorous abuses and some kind of violent persecutions of my self and others of my judgement for not acknowledging these figments of his but promoting reformation of Baptism according to our duty 6. In his unbrotherly printing my answers I made in the dispute at Bewdley Jan. 1. 1649. without so much as acquainting me with it though living near him 7. In blazing it abroad that he had driven me to gross absurdities which yet he hath not in his answer to the 17. sect of of my praecursor or elsewhere shewed to be so 8. In his light passing over my urging his own words against infant baptism about Christs institution Mat. 28.19 in my praecurs p. 66. in his Praefest morat sect 16. which is noted in the 2d Part of the Review p. 66 67. which sure being from Christs institution deserved better consideration 9. In condemning our rejection of infant Baptism though but an humane tradition on no better grounds then Papists build many of their ceremonies which he condemns in asserting the Covenant of grace to the faithfull and their seed which in disputes against Arminians is commonly denied by Contraremonstrants 10 In his many false accusations of me as a sect master disturber of the Church which he cannot prove in his scornfull expressions in the dispute and his books in his injurious insinuations of me as if I were blinded or hardened occasioned the rise of Quakerism and other errours thereby indirectly creating odium to me and to the truth and which is worst of all weakning my hands in the work of Christ and particularly in taking off my quondam hearers at Bewdley from hearing me or permitting me there to preach in publike None of which nor any of the rest of his evil suggestions of me or the people baptized there or elsewhere I pray God may be laid to his charge I have no more to add but to commend the reading of this and the other parts of the Review to thy care hoping that as the differences between the Cis-Jordan and Trans-Jordan Israelites and Peter and the circumcised Christians were composed by right inâ—elligence of their actions so it may be in this and that God will awaken the eyes of those who have opposed the truth I assert with devices of an anti-Evangelical Covenant of grace to Believers and their seed a Law and Ordâ—nance of infants visible Church membership no where extant of baptizing infants according to the Jewish pattern of baptizing Proselytes of an additional promise of casting elect children on elect parents ordinarily of a command in force now Gen. 17.9 of Baptisms succession to Circumcision and fetching a rule from it of baptisms conferâ—ing Grace c. will discern their errour and embrace that light which they have hitherto shut out and laying aside their vain disputes about the baptizing of Infants of not Churchmembers profane excommunicate parents or proparents and such like endeavour to restore that one Baptism which with that one faith once delivered to the Saints may bring the Churches of God to a right constitution and holy unity and order and without which a right reformation covenanted will not be and that goâ—ly paâ—ents of tender consciences will take heed of bringing infants to baptism whereby it is profaned and discern that it is their own duty to be baptized in the name of Christ and that the use of baptism is as Mr. Baxter confesseth p. 68 Of right to Sacraments yea essential to it to signifie and profess the saving faith and repentance of the baptized which shâ—ws infants are not baptized sith thâ—y do not that which is essential to baptism and that which is essential must be in all and not to look upon it as their childrens priviledge but as it was by Christ appointed by it engage themselves to follow the Lord JESUS which is the prayer of Thy loving Brother and real
in Germany and our present distractions sprung not from Anabaptism as Mr. Crag saith §ect 88. Austins saying about Apostolical traditions is not to be rested upon nor his testimony about the antiquity of infant baptism §ect 89. The testimonies of the Ancient writers of the Greek Church concerning infant baptism are examined and my exceptionâ— made good against Mr. Crag Dr. Hammond Dr. Homes Mr. Marshal Sect. 90. The arguments to prove infant baptism an innovation in the Greek Churches Exam. p. 9. are made good against Mr. Marshal and Dr. Homes Sect. 91. The testimonies of Tertullian for infant baptism and Dr. Hammonds interpretation of ch 39. de Animâ are examined with 1 Cor. 7.14 Sect. 92. Dr. Hammonds imagined evidence from hath been sanctified for his sense of the forepart of 1 Cor. 7.14 nullified and my opinion of enallage of tense vindicated Sect. 93. Dr. Hammonds rendring by 1 Cor. 7.14 is refelled and my â—endring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to justified Sect. 94. It is shewed that Dr. Hammond hath no proof from 1 Cor. 7.16 for his sense of the forepart of v. 14. nor will his sense of holy for baptized agree with the Apostles argument though his sense of the forepart of the verse were granted Sect. 95. Dr. Hammonds reasons from the terms holy and unclean for his sense of baptized or not baptized are refelled Sect. 96. The Jewish custome of baptism for initiation was not the pattern of Christian baptism as Dr. Hammond would have it Sect. 97. Matth. 28.19 infants are excluded from being subjects of baptism notwithstanding Dr. Hammonds pretensions Sect. 98. The testimonies of Cyâ—rian Augustin and other Latin Fathers for infant baptism are shewed to have come from their mistâ—kes and the evidences why the antiquity of infant baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended are vindicated Sect. 99. Mr. Crags objections about my nine untruths his discourse about rebaptizing are refelled Sect. 100. The Arguments of Mr. Crag for infant baptism are re-examined ERRATA Pag 2. l 17. r he premiseth p 3. l 18. r 44. p 7. l 7. r nor is l 39. r 2. p 4. l 39. r mere p 20. l 3. r motive l 10. r they are vain p 22. l 12. r not onely p 23. l 30. r yea p 25. l 6. r commenders l 10. r opinion l 25. r probability l 28. r disputation l 35. r external p 29. l 8. r 13. l 9. r 7. l 46. r speci p 39. l. 16. r. 2.17 p 40. l 31. r peculiar l 46. r 7. p 41. l 45. r seal p 55. l 11. r conveys p 62. l 43. r ejection p 67. l 12. r not sealed p 70. l 34 35. the lines are misplaced p 75. l 22. r and not still be admitted to the like initiating Sacrament p 81. l 29. r erant p 86. l. â—6 r own p 94. l 36. r persecuted l 43. r some p 100. l 4. r. 43 p 108. l 2. r find p 113. l 18. r fiction l 30. r wont p 114. l 2. r invisible p 115. l 3. r swerved p 108. l 3. r then l 13 17. r apposite p 120. l 10. r par p 121. l 4. r he tels p 123. l 8. r Baxter p 124. l 31. r appâ—site p 126. l 21. r remission of sins p 109. l 25. r incognitum p 141. l â—3 r number p 146. l 1. r eyed p 148. l 3 r mislike l 5. r apposite p 150. l 2. r meant by l 17. r comprehended p 15â— l 22. r dichotomie p 158. l 26. r branches d and. p 159. l 23. d or the inward p 160. l 15. d not p 166. l 46. r they l 48. r unbaptizable p 171. l 37. r belong p 172. l 5. r of this p 173. l 16. r seed which l 22. r because And as p 177. l 1. r that knows p 178. l 44 45. r doth not agree p 183. l 38. r regenerate p 185. l 5. r Rom. 3.1 p 186. l 9. r now p 184. l 22. r visible p 197. l 35. r type p 204. l 1â— r is not p 209. l 44 r Abrohamites antecedently p 213. l. 36. r pentance neither have ours l 43 r nor is p 215. l 21. r L. C. l 24. r e.g. p 221. l 42. r mediation p 222. l 4. r revelation l 30. r of science or l 33 r an act l 47 r contenting p 223. l 7. r types of Christ l 28. r hath not l 34. r in this l 40. r alluded p 224. l. 19. r me to p 226. l 37. d not p 228. l 6. r vent l 33 34. r syncretism p 229. l 4. d not l 5. r derive l 35. r to be a seal be p 230. l 20. r term l 44. r Jews p 23. r. l 20. r he had r 232. l 5. r our l 12. r passing l 30. r if it p 234. l 5. r 15. p 237. l 48. r P p 238. l 7. r in my l 14. r reviewed p â—39 l 8. r. flings p 240. l 15. d not l 17. r and seals l 33. r cerning p 241. l 7. r first grace l 13. r what sense p 244. l 2â— r contradistinguisheth p â—45 l 33. d not l 47. r asserting p 246. l 20. r as p 249. l 10. r there l 39. r and not p 250. l 35. r charged p 252. l 20. r Ward p 254 l 1. r 〈◊〉 p 256. l 32. r 28. l 41 43. r all at age p 257. l 8. r my l 14. r instance l 4â— r stony p 258. l 37. r futility p 261. l 1. r it were l 4. d to l 39. r sealing p 268. l 29. r ly l 42. r that l 43. d I p â—72 l 1. r reason iâ— l â—9 r and the p 273. l 23. r art p â—75 l 37. r external p 276 l 45. d not p 277. l 37. r during the l 44 45. d in the right administration of it p 278. l 12. r no where l 47. r elect allusive p 279. l 2. r afore l 15. r contain l 17. r it proper to Israel p 280. l 35. r but that such are to be l 37. r act is a l 39. r they are p 281. l 20 r were p 282. l 46. r without that l 47. r John p 283. l 44. r professor p 28â— l 36. r. or p 286 l. 19. d and l 26. r yea under yet were p 287. l 7. r was l 13 r that which l 20. r visible interest p 293. l ult r noting p 294. l 24. r unto p 295. l 38. r winding p 300. l 9. r expected p 301. l 24. r no transgressors p 310. l 12. r know not p 311. l 3. r of grace p 317. l 46. r come p 329. l 8. r meer professor p 330. l 16 r is a seal to the Gentiles that believe of the righteousness of faith though they be never circumcised l 26. r were such l 27. d were p 332. l 40. r are p 334. l 3. r inference l
ye see and heare Acts 2.33 to you and your children and all that are afar off that is for their benefit by moving them to own Christ. But me thinks if the promise were meant of that gift it should be meant thus The promise is to you that is God hath promised to give to each of you c. this gift of the holy Ghost because the words immediately before v. 38. are and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost But thus the proposition should not be true For all afar off who were called of God had not that gift and therefore it was not promised them Nor had this sense been so fit as to comfort them sith that gift might be given and was to persons whom God rejected As for the other exposition that the promise is that God will be a God to them and their children as to Abraham and his seed Gen. 17.7 it cannot be the promise meant Acts 2.39 For 1. there is not the least intimation in the text of that promise 2. There was no such promise in all the Scripture that God would be a God to those to whom Peter then spake and to their children as their children no nor such a promise as this I will be a God to a believer and his seed For if this promise were made to the seed of every believer then either God keepes it or not If not then he breaks his word if he do then he is a God to them But that is not true For neither in saving graces nor in Ecclesiastical priviledges v.g. Church-membership and baptism is God a God to every one that is the seed or natural child of a believer Yet if it were true it had been false being spoken to those Jewes who were not then believers nor perhaps many of them evet believers in Christ. And it is most false that the Christian Church-membership and baptism did belong to the Jews as Jews by vertue of any covenant made with that nation For then John Baptist did ill to expostulate with them for coming to his baptism Matth. 3.7 and to disswade them from alleging they had Abraham to their father v. 9. and to tell them of another sort of children of Abraham that had more right to it then they Yea John the Baptist and the Apostles did ill to require personal repentance and believing if they had right to such priviledges by a promise without them Nor is the promise said to be to any children but those that are called of God and therefore not to infants uncalled and consequently this Scripture is very ill applyed to prove federall holyness of believers infants Master Cobbet addes Secondly it is sending of Christ or of Christ sent But let it be considered 1. That the Apostle doth not say the promise was to you as in reference to the time of making it to the Fathers with respect unto them or in reference to Christ who was not now to come but already come as the Apostle proveth from v. 3 to 37. Nor is it the use of the Scripture when mentioning promises as fulfilled to express it thus in the present tense the promise is to you or to such and such but rather to annex some expression that way which evinceth the same for which let Rom. 15.8 1 John 2.25 Ephes. 3.6 Nehe. 9.8 23. 2 Chron. 6.15 1 Kings 8.56 Acts 2.16 17 33. and 13.32 33. Josh. 21.45 and 23.14 Matth. 1.22 23. and 21.4 Luke 1.54 55 68 69. and Psal. 111.9 Rom. 11.26 27. be considered Ans. 1. How the verb substantive is in the present tense and the promise referred to Christ who was now come agrees with the words and scope of the Apostle is already shewed And my sense is like or the same with Master Ms. when he said in his Sermon pa. 17. The plain strength of the argument is God hath now remembred his covenant to Abraham in sending that blessed seed and the new Annot. in Locum The promise is to you Christ is promised both to Jewes and Gentiles But the Jewes had the first place Which is agreeable to the speeches of Mary Luke 1.54 55. and of Zacharias v. 68 69 71 72 73 74 75. 2. It is true that the expression in that manner is not usual and it is confessed that in the places cited and many more the fulfilling of a promise is otherwise expressed But what then doth it follow that is not the meaning which I give If it did by the same reason neither Master Cobbets is right For it is usual to express a promise belonging to some of a thing yet to be done in some other expressions as 1 John 2.25 2 Pet. 1.4 yea in the place Rom. 9.4 of which Master Cobbet pa. 31. saith for the promise iâ— to you or belongs to you as Rom. 9.4 hath it the expression is not in the Dative case as Acts 2.39 but in the Genitive But it is needfull to consider how Master Cobbet himself expounds the words Sect. 1. He saith thus The promise is to your children not was to you c. as intending any legal blessing but a promise then in force after Christs ascension to effect some promised blessing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used to signify the free promise or covenant of grace to which they had visible right Sect. 3. remission of sins may not be excluded but must be one principal thing intended It is that promise to which baptism the seal is annexed Sect. 4. Nor was Abrahams charter less then what here avowed by the Apostle Scil. that the promise even of sins did belong to the Jewes and to their children in respect of external right and administration and no more is pleaded for But repent and be baptized de futuro for the promise in praesenti is to you Scil. in respect of external right Sect. 7. And this promise here mentioned Acts 2.38 39. containing in it remission of sins and so the righteousness of faith The promise of remission of sins is or belongeth to you Scil. in the external right and administration of it So then according to Master Cobbets exposition the promise meant is remission of sins and of this it is said that it is not it was to them and the manner how is that it is to them or it belongs to them in â—he external right and administration of it The promise or covenant he means here belonging to them to be Abrahams charter Gen. 17.7 Jerem. 31.33 34. holding out at least an external interest therein to them being Jewes not yet believing Fathers or repenting for that is rather mentioned as exerted after many words besides v. 40 41. yea rather they were offensive members of the Jewish Church which was then a true visible Gospel-Church they were as persons under censure though they had jus ad baptismum yet not jus in baptismo without repentance yet they were covenant-Fathers and dispensers of the external right of it to their children though their children were not
baptism and that baptism was not administrable in or by or to that church of the Jewes but in a distinct company by a select officer to a severed people from that church Nor do I know it to be true that baptism is a church-ordinance to be in ordinary dispensation administred onely in and by a church of Christ but conceive it a ministerial ordinance to be administred by one single Minister without the presence or consent of a church of Christ nor do I think baptism was at that time the Jewish ordinance being neither appointed in their law nor by Ministers chosen by them nor by their authority nor according to their direction nor for the setling of their church-discipline or authority but in these and all other respects opposite or distinct from the Jewish church And although I grant the Jewish people or church though Pareus com in locum saith Dominus areae suae h. e. ecclesiae imo totius mundi Christs floor yet from hence it followes not they were Christs visible Church there being other reason why they are called Christs floor because Christ imployed his fanne to wit his preaching among them being Minister of the circumcision Rom. 15.8 though they were not Christs visible church that is a company or people professing themselves to be his Disciples Nor is it true that in John Baptists and Christs time all sorts which John baptized hypocrites or upright ones were interessed in the Jewish church as Christs floor nor any such thing proved from Matth. 3.11 12. the being in the floor importing onely their position no benefit or interest accruing to them thereby But Master Cobbet goes on Into this Church-fellowship also did Christs own Disciples by that new way of initiation visibly seal persons which were the reformed part of that Jewish church continuing still their relation to those officers of the Jewish church and their fellowship in the Church-ordinances then dispensed and not separating from the same either gathering into distinct churches or calling to them other ordinary church-officers which yet were not actually given by Christ untill upon his ascension Ephes. 4.8 11 12. Ans. The Disciples of Christ did not visibly seal persons by that new way of initiation into the Jewish Church-fellowship the fellowship they had in the Jewish church was by their birth and circumcision and the law they were under which they submitted to while it was in force and observed such legal ordinances as were appointed them acknowledging the Priests and other Officers of the Jewes according to their place yet in respect of profession of Doctrine they were by baptism separated from the Jewes and were gathered into a distinct church had Christ and his Apostles and the 70. as their Officers in ordinary afore the ascension of Christ nor is there one jot of Scripture that doth in the least countenance this fond conceit of Master Cobbet that Jewish Church-membership gave title to baptism or baptism visibly sealed persons into Jewish Church-fellowship Master Cobbet having cashiered the spurious reasons as he imagins why Peter required of the Jews to whom he said The promise is repentance afore baptism he takes on him to assigne the genuine reasons thus But the reason rather was partly because as was said they were under such offence Ans. He required repentance because they had sinned in crucifying Christ but repentance was not required to take away the offence of the church the Jewes were of nor for the removing of a suspension from the seal For Peter was no Jewish Church-officer neither did any of the Jewish church in way of Discipline deal with those Jewes by any church-act tending to their correction for that sin yea the rulers of the Jewes with the people did generally avow that act as well done nor was any thing more offensive to them then the profession of Christ and repentance for the killing of him But Peter requires repentance as a necessary prerequisite universally to baptism and as the way to remission of sins which their perplexed soules needed Master Cobbet addes And partly because albeit their church were a true Evangelical church yet it was not so pure and perfect but had many gross mixtures both of ceremonial administrations which were now to be laid aside and of most palpably and openly corrupt and rotten members Ans. Neither doth Master Cobbet offer any proof for this his speech neither is there any likelyhood that Peter ever intended to urge repentance by reason of these things sith in none of his speeches he doth take exceptions at their church by reason of them nor had this been a sufficient reason to urge them to repentance afore baptism because though they had covenant and Church-right to baptism yet their right was to be suspended to the seal without repentance because they had gross ceremonial mixtures and openly corrupt members the Jewish church of which they were members being a gospel-church essentially the same with the christian if Master Cobbet say true for if this were a reason the New-Englâ—â—â— Elders do ill to admit godly persons to the seal with them which came from â— Paâ—ish-church in England in which were the like mixtures and corrupt members without like repentance nor doth it appear that those Jewes had any hand in those ceremonial administrations and though they sinned a great sin in crucifying Christ yet it waâ— through ignorance Acts 3.17 In a word were it granted Master Cobbet that Peter did require repentance for any of these reasons yet the argument is no whit infringed thereby that bare interest in the covenant doth not give title to baptism without repentance sith it did not give title to these Jewes even then when notwithstanding their offence and the corruptions in their church yet the promise was asserted to belong to them de praesenti in respect of external right and administration if Master Cobbets exposition hold good which is directly opposite to the requiring of repentance to baptism by reason of a suspension of their right to the seal by reason of offence and corrupt mixtures But let 's hear Master Cobbet a little further And partly saith he because it was now requisite not onely to acknowledg the promised Mâ—ssiah of Abrahams loynes to be he alone which by his bloud should come actually as well as virtually to ratifie the covenant of grace visibly made with them as they did in receiving the seal of circumcision but that they own the Lord Jesus who was crucified by and among them as he which alone did thus which amongst other testimonies baptism witnesseth therefore more was now required of the adult Jews than formerly which yet was not required of their unripe children Ans. I deny not circumcision to have had this use that it might signify that the promised Messiah should come out of Abrahams loynes and I take it as certain that baptism was appointed that thereby the baptized should own the Lord Jesus and witness that he was the Messiah and that
this was the reason why even the Jewes circumcised what ever their interest in the promise should be were bound to witness by baptism Christ to be come But this though true and such as shewes a manifâ—st difference between ciâ—cumcision and baptism in their use and confirmes the necessity of faith or owning of Christ by the baptized at his baptism yet is not pertinent to the intent of Master Cobbet sith thereby neither is the argument from Peters requiring repentance to baptism infringed which argues that therefore covenant-interest is not sufficient title to baptism without repentance nor is thereby any reason given of râ—pentance being required by Peter afore baptism Nor is there any proof in Master Cobbet why more should be required to baptism of the adult Jewes then of their unripe children onely he tels of their practice in New England that when any are received to fellowship with them though they being as transient members by vertue of communion of churches are admitted upon their former church-ingagement yet desirous to be fixed Members they require testimony of their repentance of their former church-sins and personal scandals therein committed not so of their children not sui juris nor capable of personal satisfaction so it was with them Acts 2. being to be incorporated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way But setting aside the question whether this course in New England be justifiable and by what rule they require more of the fixed member then of the transient the defilement being alike in both 1. It is not true that it was so with the Jewes and their children as with fixed and transient members in N. E. For neither was the church of the Jewes then an Evangelical church less perfect then that of the Apostles but openly opposite to Christ and the christian church Nor was that which those Jewes perplexed did propound that they might be of their church as a purer church but what Peter and the Apostles would advise them to do to free them from the guilt of crucifying Christ. Nor doth Peter at all as an Elder assign repentance to them for admission to outward Church-priviledges but as an Apostle preacheth to them repentance for remission of sins and easing their consciences which was an act of doctrine not of jurisdiction 2. If it had been so yet neither doth this prove that the Apostle required more of the aged Jewes to baptism then formerly nor that he did it because they were to be incoâ—porated into a purer company exhibiting the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way nor that he did require more of the Fathers then the children to baptism nor is the argument infringed that if covenant-interest intitle to baptism of it self without repentance the Father to whom the promise is as well as the child yea in priority to the child who derives his title from the Fathers covenant-interest then it should much more intitle the Father to baptism without repentance Idem qua idem semper facit idem so that after so many shifts absurdities unproved dictates vain dreames of making the case of the Jewes like persons received into fellowship in N. E. and the overweening conceit of the purity of their church and exhibition of the ordinances of Christ in a more perfect Evangelical way there is nothing yet produced to invalidate the argument from Peters requiring repentance of the Jewes afore baptism against the connexion between covenant-interest and right to baptism Master Cobbet goes on thus nor must that needs follow that because it 's said they were added to the church that therefore they were not of the church before but after Peter spake those words v. 39. the promise is to you c. for this is as well spoken after that expression that they were baptized as after that mentioned of their receiving the Word gladly and yet will our opposites conclude that therefore they were not of the church nor in the covenant before they were baptized but came into that estate by baptism If baptism were the form of the church or that which they so much urge wholly failed that a person must be first discipled and so in covenant and Church-estate before he be baptized Ans. Either I understand not the force of words or else it is a cleer argument Acts 2.41 And there were added in that day souls about three thousand v. 47. And the Lord added the saved daily to the church and these were of the Jewes therefore Jewes were not of the church before that day and that addition For what is addition to a company but a joyning or bringing one more to them then was before even as in arithmetick addition is putting to another member then was before reckoned And this argument seems so plain to me that I count the denial of it as the denial of a common notion That which Master Cobbet answers is to the argument framed thus they are not said to be added till after Peters speech v. 39. therefore they were not of the church before and I confess the argument so framed is not so cogent sith historians do not alwaies relate things in order as they were done Yet supposing Lukes relation orderly of which there is no cause to doubt sith the particles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then v. 41. shew it the argument is good after Peters words it is said then and that day were added therefore they were not before of the church Nor do I know any absurdity in it to say they were added by baptism to the church it being one means of addition to the church and though I say not that baptism is the form of the church but that there may be a church without baptism nor the onely way of adding to the church for the preaching of the Word is also a means of adding to it yet this I say that neither is a church regular nor the addition as it should be without baptism And though I say a person is to be discipled afore he be baptized yet he may be baptized afore he is in some sense in covenant and church-estate meaning in covenant by Gods promise to him and in church-estate that is so as to be reckoned a member of a visible church in compleat fellowship of other ordinances with it Master Cobbet proceeds thus Nor is that cogent which is urged against the childrens right in the promise and unto baptism that they should be so priviledged when they came to be effectually called and to be turned from their sins as if this were quoad homines their onely rule of judging of persons visible interest in the covenant of grace or visible right to the initiatory seal thereof or at least the onely way of having such a visible interest in the visible churches courâ— For besides that it was not so of old in applying of circumcision as Gods appointed seal of the parties visible covenant-estate and right even with us
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.
Church is not enough to make a visible Church member in the Christian Church which consists not of a whole nation known by circumcision genealogies outward policy national meetings family dwelling c. But of so many persons as are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. adds Yea say you further it will follow that there may be a vâ—sible Church which consists onely of infants of believers I answer no more now than in the time of the Iewish Church it 's possible but very imâ—roble that all the men and women should die and leave onely infants behind them and it 's far more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites Answer It is somewhat more possible or more probable there should be onely infants left in a Church of a house town or village than in the Church which consists of a numerous nation as the Iewish Church did nor is it unlikely â—uch things hâ—ve happened in sweeping plagues And if it be farre more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onely of hypocrites the sâ—me with more probability may be said of a Church gathered in the Pedobâ—â—pists way in which there is of necessiâ—y so much ignorance in matters of Religion all being admitted Church-members afore they know or can know anything of Christ. Jam sumus ergo pares But if it be possible as it is granted that a Church visible of Christians may consist only of infants it wil follow that there may be a visible Church of Christians in which there is no one professor of the faith contrary ro the definiâ—ion of a visible Church That it is a company of professors of faith and they shal be visible Church-members who neither by themselves or any for them do any thing which is apparent to the understanding by the meditation of sense whereby Christianity is expressed The case is not the same of the Iewish Church and the Christian for the Christian Church is any company though but of two or three gathered together in Christs name Matth. 18.20 But the Iewish Church was the whole Congregation of Israel known otherwise as hâ—th been said than the Christian. Next Mr M. against these words of mine It is also true that we are not to account infants of believers which he omits in repetition to belong to God before God which he likewise omits in repetition in respect of election from eternity omitted by him or promise of grace in Christ omitted also of present estate of in-being in Christ or future estate by any act of Science or faith without a particular relation for there is no generall declaration of God that the infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate excepts two things 1. This makes nothing against that visible Church-membership be pleads for Answer If that visible Church-membership he pleads for arise from the covenant of grace in Christ as hitherto hath been the plea nor can they shew any other then they are not visible Church-members who have not an estate in that covenant which is the cause of it For take away the cause and â—he effect ceaseth and then the visible Church-membership of existing infants of present believers is overthrown sith the cause of it appears not And if they are not to be accounted by act of faith to belong to God in respect of promise of grace in Christ and the Minister is to dispense the seals by a judgment of faith as Mr M. holds in his Sermon pag. 47 in his Defence pag. 111. then there being no act of faith concerning existing infants of present believers they are not to be baptized 2. Saith Mr. M. I retort rhe Argument upon your self and dare boldly affirm that by this argument no visible Church or all the visible professors of any Church are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity or promise of grace or present state of in-being in Christ c. wâ—thout a paricular revelation because there is no declaration of God that present visible professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate look by what distinction you will answer this For visible professors who are grown men the same will serve for infants of believers Answ. If Mr. M. had put in these words of mine By any act or science of faith I should have granted the same might be said of visible professors grown men which I had said of infants But this no whit hurâ—s our Teneâ—t or practice who do not baptize grown persons because by no act of faith or science we know them to be in the covenant of grace in Christ but because by an act of faith we know Christ hath appointed Disciples appearing such by heir profession of faith to be baptized by us and by an act of science or experience by sense we know them to be such whom we baptize Concerning whom though we cannot account them elect and in the covenant by an act of science or faith without a particular revelation yet we may by an act of certain knowledge mixt of science and prudence from sense of their visible profession know them to be serious sober understanding and free professors of Christianity and by an act of faith from Christs institution of bapttizing professing disciples know we ought to baptize them and upon their profession out of charity which believeth all things hopeth all things 1 Cor. 13.7 judge them by an act of opinion elect and in the covenant of grace in Christ. None of all which can be said of existing infants of present believrs and therfore we ought to pass no judgement on them in this thing but suspend our judgmenâ—t and act of baptizing concerning our selves with that comfortable hope which we have from indefinite promises Next Mr M. takes upon him to excuse some speeches of Mr. Cottons against which I excepted in my Examen pag 42 4â— one was That the covenant of grace is given to every godly man in his seed Concerning which Mr M. tels me That he takes M. Cottons meaning to be that look as Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the covenant that is every godly man to his seed now except onely in such things wherein these Patriarks were of Christ in all other things wherein God promised to be the God of them and types their seed godly parents may plead it as much for their seed now as they could then and what ever inâ—onveniences or absurdity you can seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton will equally reach to them also As for example suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed you 'l
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
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
that Mr. M. perverts my words my arguing being no other then this Baptism is alledged as one of the means whereby we come to be compleat in Christ which Mr. M. denies not but avows as his sense therefore there was another reason besides the succession of it into the place of circumcision why the Apostle there mentions it which Mr. M. denied And this consequence however Mr. M. in his flout term it is good except it were true that every means whereby we are compleat in Christ succeeds circumcision the contrary whereof is confessed by Mr. M. in acknowledging faith to be one of the means whereby we are compleat in Christ Col. 2.12 which yet succeeds not circumcision according to him Mr. Ms. censure of my speech that the misunderstanding Col. 2.11 12. was an ignis fatuus as arrogant is shewed in my Apology sect 5. p. 29. to be injurious And what he saith in his Defence p. 179. of my position that circumcision was not a token of the Covenant to the Jews children is another injury in that he leaves out the words in sone sense which was set down a little before in my Appendix p. 174. which being added there is nothing in them contrary to the Text Gen. 17. but enough thence to prove my speech true What Mr. C. urgeth p. 81 from 1 Cor. 5.7 8. of the Lords Supper succeeding the Passeover That the Apostle could not have expressed by such phrases taken from the Passeover the celebrating the Lords Supper had not the Passeover and the Supper been the same for substance is not right For 1. that by keeping the feast is meant eating the Lords Supper is not proved and Beza Diodati the new Annot. with others paraphrase the words thus Let us lead our life 2. Our obedience gifts doing good are termed sacrifices yet these phrases prove not them to be the same in substance in Mr. Cs. sense 3. Christ is expresly in the Text 1 Cor 5.7 termed our Passeover therefore the Text makes the sacrifice of Christ to sucâ—eed the Passeover not the Lords Supper But Mr. Drew p. 3â— thinks to prove the succession of Baptism to Circumcision because as he saith in my Exercit. p. 3. c. I readily grant that Baptism is an Ordinance set up by the appointment of Christ to serve for the same spiritual ends that circumcision did To which I say that all I grant there is that Circumcision and Baptism signified and confirmed the promise of the Gospel but I added according to different forms and function and I ascribed no more to Circumcision then to the Paschal lamb the rain of Mannah c. But this is not the same with that which Mr. Drew injuriously imposeth on me Yet if it were it would not prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision as is before shewed and if it did it would as well prove its succession to the Passeover Manna the water out of the Rock c. which hee will not assert I think The rest which hee saith about Col. 2.11 12. is the same with what others say and hath been answered in my Examen part 3. sect 9. in my Appendix and in this section and in other parts of this Review As for Mr. Cotton who is one of those to whose writing Mr. Drew refers us for proof of Baptisms succession to Circumcision from Col. 2.10 11 12. his conceit is grounded upon this mistake in hiâ— book of Baptism p. 128. That the Apostle pleadeth our compleatness in Christ notwithstanding our want of circumcision in that wee enâ—oy the like fulness of benefit in our Baptism as the Jews did in their circumcision which hath been often shewed to bee false For there is no mention of a benefit to the Jews but to the Colossians and this benefit was not bare outward Circumcision or any outward Church priviledge but the inward Circumcision in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh and this not by the Jews Circumcision but Christs circumcision in his own person nor is it true that the fulness of benefit there is ascribed to ordinary Baptism nor can bee rightly so conceived And what Mr. Cotton saith in the same place against those who say that Baptism being granted to succeed Circumcision yet it follows not infants must bee baptized That succession is the substitution of later things for former things in the same subâ—ect if the subject be changed so far as there is a change of the subject there is no succession and therefore if infants be not baptized as they were circumcised Baptism succeeds not circumcision is false and against himself 1. False for we know though there were a law made that after infant Kings al should be adult and after women Queens all should be male Kings yet they should be true successors as King James to Queen Elizabeth Henry the 7th to Edward the 5th or Henry the 6th 2. Against himself For thereby is proved Baptism doth not succeed circumcision sith there is a change in the subject women being baptized who were not circumcised and parents or masters of families being to circumcise but preachers of the Gospel onely to baptize As for what Dr. Homes to whom Mr. Drew also refers in his Annimadvers on my Exercit. p. 28 29. brings to prove Baptisms succession to Circumcision it 's upon alike mistakes For 1. it is not true that the Apostles scope Col. 2.12 in mentioning Baptism is to answer the objection Dr. Homes imagins and to shew that we are as compleat as the Jews because Christ hath appointed another sign to wit Baptism in stead of the Jews Circumcision 2. Nor doth the Apostle affirm or intimate that if we have not Baptism in the room of Circumcision to us Believers and our infants we are not so compleat as the Jews by Christ. 3. Nor is it true that the Apostle doth call off the Colossians from circumcision by the consideration of their Baptism as in the room of circumcision 4. Nor doth the Apostle make such analogy between Baptism and Circumcision as Dr. Homes saith he doth 5. Nor if hee did would this prove such a succession of Baptism to Circumcision as Paedobaptists would have that the command of infant Circumcision must be a command for infant Baptism Mr. Thomas Fullers argumentation for the succession of Baptism to Circumcision in all the essentials of it as he speaks in his Infants advocate ch 7. is alike vain For there is no inconvenience that I know to say no ordinance doth succeed Circumcision his talk of Sacraments being pillars of the Church is but phrasifying instead of disputing nor do I know how it can bee true Nor do I know that all or any graces Evangelical are conferred in baptism or were in circumcision of the Jewes much less that the conferring of such grace is essential to either of them nor is it true that Col. 2.11 12. Christians are said by Baptism to bee spiritually circumcised and by the same proportion the believing Jews
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.
powers were to preach and baptize those that received their doctrine SECT XCVIII The testimonies of Cyprian Augustin and other Latin Fathers for Infant Baptism are shewed to have come from their mistakes and the evidences why the antiquity of Infant Baptism should not be deemed such as is pretended are vindicated I Now return to the examination of the Testimonies brought out of the rest of the Latin Fathers besides Tertullian for infant Baptism whereof Cyprian was the chief and his testimony is thus urged by Dr. Hammond Defence of infant Baptism chap. 4. sect 2. p. 99. In the midst of this third Age An. Chr. 248. was S. Cyprian made Bp. of Carthage and ten years after he suffered martyrdome i. e. 158 years after the Age of the Apostles In the year 257 he sate in Councel with 66 Bishops see Justellus in his preface to the African Canons p. 21. and their Decrees by way of Synodical Epistle are to be seen in his Ep. 58. ad Fidum fratrem which is now among his works â—amel edit p. 80. The Councel was in answer to some questions about Baptism and accordingly he there sets down his own opinion together with the Decrees of that Councel of 66 Bishops which were assembled with him And so this as it is an ancient so it is more then a single testimony that of a whole Councel added to it and yet farther to encrease the authority of it 〈◊〉 cites this Epistle more then once and sets it down almost entire 〈◊〉 a testimony of great weight against hereticks and so 't is â—â—ed by S. Hierom also l. 3. dial cont Pelag. In this Epistle the question being proposed by Fidus whether infants might be baptized the second or third day or whether as in Circumcision the eighth day were not to be expected he answers in the name of the Councel universi judicavimus 't was the resolution or sentence of all nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denigandam that the mercy and grace of God was not to be denied to any human birth to any child though never so young by that phrase mercy and grace of God evidently meaning Baptism the right of conveying them to the baptized adding that 't is not to be thought that this grace which is given to the baptized is given to them in a greater or less degree in respect of the age of the receivers and that God as he accepts not the person so nor the age of any confirming this by the words of S. Peter Act. 10. that none was to be called common or unclean and that if any were to be kepâ— from Baptism it should rather be those of full age who have committed the greater sins and that seeing men when they come to the faith are not prohibited baptism how much more ought not the infant to be forbidden who being new born hath no sin upon him but that which by his birth from Adam he hath contracted as soon as he was born who therefore should more easily bee admitted to pardon because they are not his own but others sins which are then remitted to him concluding that as none were by the decree of that Councel to be refused baptism so this was the rather to be observed and retained about infants and new-born children Thus much and more was the sentence of that ancient Father and that Councel and as the occasion of that determination was not any Antipaedobaptist doctrine there had no such then so much as lookt into the Church that we can hear of but a conceit of one that it should be deferr'd to the eigth day which was as much infancy as the first and so both parties were eâ—ually contrary to the Antiâ—aedobaptists interests the condemned as well as the Judges so that it is no new doctrine that was then decreed or peculiar to S. Cyprian who had one singular opinion in the matter of baptism appears also by the concurrence of the whole Councel that convened with him and by the express words of St. August Ep. 28. ad Hieronym Blessed Cyprian not making any new decree but keeping the faith of the Church most firm decreed with a set number of his fellow Bishops that a child new born might fitly be baptized Which shews it the resolution of that Father also that baptizing of infants was the faith of the Church before Cyprians time not onely the opinion but the â—aith which gives it the authority of Christ and his Apostles Answ. I have been willing to set down these words at large sith none urgeth this authority more fully though Mr. M. Dr. H. Mr. B c. do all alledge it and it is the chiefest of all the testimonies Augustin produced for infant Baptism and therefore was translated by me into English and printed at the end of my praecursor Concerning which act Mr. B. praefest mor. p. 401. saith thus It seems to me God ordered Mr. T. to translate Cyprians Epistle to the disgrace of his cause with the vulgar themselves For none can be so blinde as not to see in it the antiquity of infant Baptism which is all that we urge it for But if the cause I maintain be disgraced by translating that Epistle I shall take it as a sign that a spirit of dotage is faln on men so as to be enamouted on the blemishes of the ancient Sure me thinks none of the vulgar much less the learned should be so blinde as not to discern that infant Baptism was an errour which was maintained by the prime assertors upon such vain reasons as are in that Epistle which are not excused by what Mr. B. saith That the arguments are onely for confutation of the objection concerning infants uncleanness before the eighth day and not to give the grounds that warranted infant Baptism For the truth is both are done together and the best grounds they had for it are set down by them which will appear to be so frivolous by examination of them that notwithstanding all the credit Dr. Hammond endeavours to gain to it yet men of mean understandings I doubt not will by reading of it discern how ill that Councel did in that determination Nor doth it any whit beâ—ter the matter to say that it was not Cyprian alone but also a whole Councel of 66 Bishops which did thus agree with him For in like manner did the same Cyprian with a more famous Councel See Epist. to Jubaia ponep Quir. Janu. Steph. at the same place determine the rebaptizing of the baptized by Hereticks with better shew of Scripture and reason then in his Epistle to Fidus and alledged Apostolical authority as much as in this and yet he is deserted therein not onely by the Bishops of Rome that were then but also by Augustin and the African and other Churches Besides his maintaining the perfusion of the Clinici in his Epistle to Magnus l. 4. Epist. 7. his maintaining the necessity of water with the wine in the Lords Supper as
of the faithful have by their birth interest in that Covenant considering how the Apâ—stle determines Rom. 9.8 the children of the flesh may not be the children of God nor the seed nor children of the promise Another ense of the promise Gen. 17.7 is I will be a God to Abraham and his natural seed by Isaac and Jacob But in this sense it is proper only to the Jewes and the argument is as frivolous God promised to be a God to the Jews therefore infant-Gentiles who have nothing to do with that promise must have baptism which is no seal or token of that promise at all If Mr. M. would have done something to his purpose he should have shewed not as he doth p. 106 107 c. in many words quite besides the business how the Covenant is taken strictly and largely and how they may be said to be in covenant in some sense who have a visible right without saving grace but have shewed in which words there is any promise that may infer right to Gentile-believers infants to be baptized Gen. 17.7 or how he can prove what he saith page 103. That baptism seals that promise in which God engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians and their seed I would fain know in what words in respect of what blessings and gifts and in what manner or upon what terms God thus engageth himself The Apostle saith Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his seed were the promises made I no where find they were made to a Gentile believer and his seed The like playing with ambiguities is in the use of the phrases foederate in Covenant being under the Covenant being in Covenant Covenanters When he saith Infants of believers are foederati or Covenanters with God or enter into Covenant according to the plain meaning of the word they should be asserted to be such as make a promise to God For what is a Covenanter but one that makes a promise how do men enter into covenant but by some act testifying assent to a promise now in this sense I should grant his Major and deny his Minor which in this sense is against sense For when did any hear or see or otherwise perceive an infant of a believer make a promise to God or by any act of his shew his assent to own God for his God In the other form he saith All such as are in the Covenant should be sealed and that expression seems to have this sense That God by his act of promise as his words are page 103. engageth himself to be the God of believing Christians and their seed which his words import page 92. where having said All such as are in the Covenant should be sealed to prove it he allegeth Gen. 17.7 9 10 14. Where the very ground why God would have them sealed is because of the Covenant I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee c. So that the sense of his argument should be thus All they who are in covenant that is to whom God hath promised to be their God they should be sealed c. But all infants of believing even Gentile parents are in Covenant that is God hath promised to be their God Ergo. Of which I would deny both Major and Minor the minor being expresly contrary to Ro. 9.8 though it were understood of true believers and most certainly false of believers only in profession to whom especially thâ—se of the Gâ—ntiles God never promised to be God much less to their natural seed yet the minor must be true of them or else this argument proves not they are to be baptized which is their practise But seeing the Argument for infant-baptism will not hold in these senses of the promise Gen. 17.7 though the first sense be that which they give of that promise when they dispute against Arminians and apply it to the elect onely as the words of many shew cited in my Examen part 3. S. 4. in my Praecursor S. 10. Mr. M. himself so expounds it with Mr. Bayn pag. 102. of his Defence therefore Mr. M. hath another sense to which he flies He talks of an outward and an inward Covenant page 120. and page 112. he tells us That he means all the infants of believers are in the outward Covenant that is they are to be reputed as in the Covenant in respect of the outward administration outward Ordinances and Church-privileges which when it comes to application is meant of no other than baptism now and circumcision heretofore and therefore as I shew in my Apology S. 10. the Major proposition is meerly nugatory in this sense All that are in the Covenant that is that are to have the initial seal should be sealed with the initial seal which were true but ridiculous And in truth I may how ever it be censured apply to the discourse in this argument be it Mr. Ms. or the Assemblies the Poets words Parturiunt montes nascâ—tur ridiculus mus And yet there is more shuffling in this thing Mr. M. to make some shew of answering my instances of women and males under eight daies old not being circumcised though in covenant limits his Major in the first form thus supposing them onely capable of the seal and no special bar put in against them in the other form thus unless they be either uncapable of it or are exempted by particular dispensation By the Bar he means Gods prohibition as these words page 93. shew God forbad them to have the seal till they were eight daies old But a prohibition and a dispensation are not all one a Prohibition is of a thing that may not be done a dispensation supposeth the thing is to be done yet frees the person from doing it in some cases for some time But letting pass this exception against the expressions I would know how God put a bar or forbad infants under eight daies old to be circumcised I know no other but this that God appointed the eighth day for them to be circumcised Now if this be a forbidding to circumcise before as I acknowledge it is and so do many Protestant Divines as Parcus Comment in Gen. 17.11 Errant masculi in foedere abjutero c. anticipare vero signum nec licebat nec opus erat then that is forbidden which is otherwise than God appointed and sith our Lord Christ hath not appointed any to be baptized till they be disciples he hath prohibited any to be baptized till they be disciples and so what ever the London Ministers say in their words above recited there is just ground even a prohibition against baptizing infants And so the Minor of Mr. Ms. argument is not true Upon all this debate I profess I find so much inconsiderateness or confusedness or non-sense or untruth or trifling if not juggling in Mr. Ms. arguing that I must vary my answer as I find his meaning sometimes denying the Syllogism as being tautological and not having three terms
of a Covenant he doth not appoint it a sign and seal of a Covenant that hath no promises or wherein the persons to whom and the promises are not sufficiently exprest yet he doth command that sign to be used upon persons to whom is no promise in that covenant as well as those to whom it is made yea the using it on one person may seal to thousands who are not to have it on their own persons as the circumcising of Abraham himself was a seal of the righteousness of faith to all believers of the Gentiles who were not to be circumcised And if every ones Circumcision should seal to him the righteousness of faith then circumcision should by Gods appointment seal that which is not true which is not to be said of God Nor doth Mr. Blake prove from Galatians 4.30 that Ishmael was first in Covenant because he was after cast out for the casting out is not appointed to be out of the Covenant for that Abraham could not do to whom this speech is directed it is God that puts in and out of his Covenant but the casting out is out of Abrahams family which was to be done by Abraham If it be replyed that this was a sign of casting out of Covenant and therefore supposed he was in Covenant I answer so it was a sign of casting out of the inheritance out of the righteousness of faith out of the Kingdom of heaven which yet neither he nor those whom he typified and so were cast out with him ever had What he calls my dream of ejection by non-admission doth but shew Mr. Blakes own oscitancy For Matthew 8.12 it is said the children of the Kingdome that is the Jews shall be cast out to wit of the Kingdom of heaven where Abraham and Isaac and Jacob sit down into outer darknesse and yet those children of the Kingdom were never in the Kingdom of heaven nor ever should be Ishmaels casting out after the time of the Solemnity of his admission by circumcision doth not prove he was in covenant before Neither circumcision nor baptism doth admit men into covenant with God If they did then administrators could put men in and out of Covenant with God but that is Gods prerogative not in mans power Even according to Paedobaptists suppositions persons are first to be in Covenant afore they are to be baptized therfore baptism doth not admit them into Covenant Master Blake addes For that of Hebrews 11.9 it is a mystery what he will make of it unlesse he will conclude that because Abraham sojourned in the Land of promise that therefore none were in Covenant that were not taken into that Land so Moses and Aaron will be found out of Covenant To which I reply The mystery might have been unveiled if Mr. Blake had heeded that the Author of that Epistle calls onely Isaac and Jacob of those that dwelt with Abraham in tents heirs with him of the same promise therefore Ishmael and Esau were not heirs with him of the same promise though he dwelt in tents with them and consequently were not in the Covenant or had not the Covenant or promise of Abraham made to them Upon those words of mine As for a visible Church-seed of Abraham that is neither his seed by nature nor by saving faith nor by excellency in whom the nations of the Earth should be blessed to wit Christ I know none such in Scripture though some men have fancied such a kind of Church-seed as it is called Master Blake thus animadverts I know not how saving faith comes in when a faith of profession will serve the turn Abrahams seed had circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith when their parents had no more than a faith of profession To which I reply a meer faith of profession will not serve turn to make any Gentile to be rightly according to the Scripture termed Abrahams seed None of them in Scripture are counted Abrahams seed but either true believers before God or elect persons No where doth the Scripture say that the Circumcision which any of Abrahams seed had was as a seal of the righteousness of faith to them when their parents were true believers much less when their parents had no more than a faith of profession Mr. Blakes talk that all that which my three former exceptions gainsaid is made good is but vain as the rest of his arguing Let us here see what he addes further I had said Lastly were all these things yielded yet the proposition could not be made good from hence sith the inference is not concerning title or right of infants to the initial seal as if the Covenant or promise of it self did give that but the inference is concerning Abrahams duty that therefore he should be the more ingaged to circumcise his posterity Hereupon Mr. Blake tells me I should rather have left this to my adversaries for the strengthening of their proposition than have made use of it my self for refutation of it It was Abrahams duty to give them according to Gods command the initial seal in this Master Tombs and we are agreed whether it will thence follow that they had right and title to it or without right let the Reader determine Answ. The Adversaries propositions to be refuted were first That the reason why Abrahams infants were to be circumcised was their interest in the Covenant which they would gather from Gen. 17.7 and 9. put together secondly That to them belongeth the initial seal whether of the Jewish or Christian Church who have interest or title to the Covenant of grace But if the inference be not of title or right in the persons to be circumcised but of duty in the administrator and the propositions be of title or right from the Covenant and not of duty the adversaries propositions are not rightly gathered from that inference which is not concerning right or title but duty As for Master Blakes jeer rather than answer it is unworthy a serious sober man For my speech did not intimate that the infants were circumcised without right or title but that the inference Gen. 17.9 was of duty not of title or right and that what title the infants had to circumcision it was not as Paedobaptists suppose from the interest in the Covenant which the circumcised had but the command of God to the circumciser and therefore there is not any connexion between interest in the Covenant and title or right to the initial seal without the command nor this proposition true All they who are in Covenant are to be sealed with the initial seal unless this limitation be added when it is commanded Now if this limitation be put then though the infants of believers were granted to be in Covenant yet they are not to be baptized till over and besides their being in Covenant a command for their baptism be shewed which hath not been yet nor I think ever will be There are some more of Mr. Blakes jeers or
flirts rather than sober and serlous answers yet remaining To what I said that Abraham was engaged to circumcise only those that are males and not afore eight daies and not onely those that were from himself but also all in his house whose children soever they were which apparently shews that the giving circumcision was not commensurate to the persons interest in the Covenant but it was to be given to persons as well out of Covenant as in if of Abrahams house and not to all that were in the Covenant to wit females which doth cleerly prove that right to the initial seal as it is called of circumcision did not belong to persons by vertue of the Covenant but by force of the command Mr. Blake in his flirting fashion thus speaks If he can prove that Abraham kept Idolaters in his house professedly worshipping a false God and gave Circumcision to them in that faith and way of worship it would prove that a man might have the seal and not be in Covenant And it will prove a man might have the seal and not be in covenant though I cannot prove any Idolater in Abrahams house if I can prove there were or might be infants or young persons who were children of Idolaters for such were not in covenant as the seed of believers or by their own profession But saith he it would not prove that he might be in covenant and be denied the seal True but this that infant-males under eight daies old and females in covenant might be denyed the seal would prove it And then saith Mr. Bl. infant-baptism might be of easier proof Though they were not in Covenant though they were not holy yet they might be baptized I reply I grant that persons in Covenant might be denyed Circumcision but think infant-baptism never a whit the easier proved I ft-circumcision is commanded of all in Abrahams house whether in covenant or no but baptism to none because he is in covenant or holy but because a disciple which is not true of any infant ordinarily But saith Master Blake I will not yield so much I do not believe that Abraham carried circumcision beyond the line of the Covenant and that he had those in his house which were aliens from God seeing I find that testimony of the Lord concerning him Genesis chap. 18. verse 19. and find that resolution of Joshua Joshua chap. 24. verse 14 15. I believe Abraham catechized all he took in as Heathens and did not circumcise them as Heathens Answ. I believe he did not circumcise them as Heathens but as his own bought with his money and of his house and if he bought any infants or young children which was then and hath been since usual where men and women are sold as slaves he did circumcise infant or young males of heathen Idolaters For the command of God was he should and yet those infant or young males of heathen Idolaters could not be catechized nor were in Covenant either by their own profession or their parents right or any promise of God to them and therefore circumcision in that case must be carried beyond the line of the Covenant To what I added of Master Marshalls Confession That he granted the formal reason of the Jews being circumcised was the command and the covenant he makes only a motive Defence page 182. Master Blake speaks thus I wonder what need there is of an argument to force such a Confession The reason I say why Jews were circumcised and Christians baptized is the command were there a thousand Covenants and no institution of a sign or seal such a sign or seal there could have been no circumcision no baptism The command is the ground and the Covenant is the Directory to whom application is to be made we say all in Covenant are entituled to the seal for admission but we presuppose an institution I reply If the formal reason why the Jews were circumcised were the Command and the Covenant onely the motive then the command was the differencing reason for the form distinguisheth and the formal reason is the reason which differenceth Motives are not directions what to do but commands the same motive may be to contrary commands The Command is the Directory to whom application is to be made both of circumcision and baptism The command doth express not only the act to be done but also the persons to whom The Covenant is no Directory to whom circumcision or baptism is to be applyed The whole Covenant of Circumcision is expressed Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. But there is not a word who are to be circumcised but after There is not the least hint in the institution of baptism Matthew chap. 28. verse 19. Mark chap. 16. verse 15. of any Covenant God makes to man To imagine God commanded circumcision and baptism and yet not to tell who are to be baptized or circumcised but from the Covenant which no man knoweth to whom it belongs is to imagine God gives a blind command which no wise Master would do It is not true all in covenant are entitled to the seal for admission for then females males under eight daies old believers out of Abrahams house Proselytes of the gate had been entitled to Circumcision for they were in Covenant as well as those who were to be circumcised And it is as certain on the other side that Ishmael Esau the infants of strangers bought by Abraham with his money were to be circumcised though they were not in Covenant and therefore I inferre it as certain that being in covenant or interest in the covenant or having the promises of the Covenant Genesis 17.4 5 6 7 8. or the new Covenant in Christs blood Heb. 8.10 11 12. and 10.16 17. or any other Evangelical Covenant all or some of them made to a person did not intitle a person to circumcision nor doth now to baptism nor can be without the command or institution of Christ or primitive example a rule Directory or sufficient warrant for any to baptize a person nor acquit him from profaning and abusing baptism and therefore there is no such reality of connexion between the Covenant and seal that this proposition is thereby proved true All in Covenant are intitled to the seal for admission or this false some of those who are not in covenant are intitled to the seal as they call it for admission and Master Blakes censure of my exceptions as frivolous trifles shews his weaknesse in disputes there being very little in his arguings or answers but flirts quips dictates and impertinencies What he addes of my grants discovers the like vanity For though I say that believers and disciples are to be baptized not barely on their faith and knowledge but upon the Command to baptize such yet how it follows which Mr. Blake saith so that the command is with reference to the Covenant with reference to the interest in the Covenant is to me a meer inconsequence unless he imagine the command and Covenant