grant and yet Mr. Bs. law and ordinance not thereby proved For infants may be Churchmembers of the redeemed Church and yet not of the visible Church and the infant state may be not excluded from the visible Church and yet there may be no law or ordinance for the inclusion of them yea there may be a law or ordinance for inclusion of them and yet none for including them in the visible Church Christian. Nor is his proof of any validity For the conseâ—uence holds not Christ was by Gods promise Head of the Church in infancy therefore infants were by Gods will to be Churchmembers or the infant state is not excluded from the visible Church It must rest upon some such positions as these In what age God promised Christ to bee Head of the Church in that age his will was that persons should be visible Churchmembers the ordering of Christs age is an exemplar to the Church or rather rule for the being and accounting of visible Churchmembers Which are manifestly false 1. Because there is no such thing declared in Scripture and therefore it is to be taken as a meer fancy 2. Because if these positions were true 1. then an infant in the mothers womb should be a visible Churchmember because then Christ was head of the Church and as Mr B. saith The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womans seed and so as conceived of her 2. Then an old man shoâ—ld not be a member of the visible Church because Christ in the days of his flesh was not an old man which are both absurd And for the antecedent of Mr. Bs. enthymeme though I deny not that Christ in infancy was Head of the Church nor that he was the Prophet of his Church in infancy understanding it of his being the Prophet habitually and by designation nor that he in some respect to wit of rule and protection the Head of the visible Church even of that part which is not elect Yet 1. I deny that in respect of that union which makes any members of his body in the Scripture acception which is by his spirit he is head of that part of the visible Church which is not elect nor can he be said in this respect and after the Scripture speech to be Head of the visible Church as visible but onely in respect of that part which is invisible to wit the true believers or elect pâ—rsons who alone are univocally members of Christ the Head as the Doctrine of Protestant writers a voweth Dr. Rainold thes 4. § 26. Mali nulla corporis Christi pars sunt Dr. Field of the Church book 1. ch 2. The wicked are neither parts nor members of the mystical body of Christ. Bellarmin himself de Eccl milit c. 9. makes them members not living nor true according to the essence of members but dead and as ill humours in the body and in respect of some outward use Christ makes of them 2. Nor do I well know how to make a construction of this speech of Mr. B. that the Lord Jesus is promised Gen 3.15 to do this work of bruising the Serpents head or conquering the Devil as the womans seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age according to which it may be true For though I grant the man Christ Jesus who did this work to have been an infant first yet I do not think it true that he did it as the womans seed according to humane nature onely but also according to his Divine Heb 9.14 nor what he did was done in infancy but at ripe age For he bruised the Serpents head and conquered the Devil by his death Heb. 2.14 which was not in infancy but at ripe age 3. Nor do I understand how it is true that by Christs birth and infancy God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state For though I grant children born and infants are sanctified by God through Christ who was born and an infant yet that the humane birth and the infant state should be sanctified thereby seems not true for then humane birth and infancy should be holy in any infants oâ— persons born and so the birth of a bastard should be holy and his infancy holy which I need not shew how absurd it is 4. Nor do I conceive any truth but gross falshood in that speech Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the head first an infant For this doth suppose that either this was the onely end or chief end without which God had not made Christ an infant and consequently this was more in Gods eye then the saving of sinners for which Christ came into the world or the fulfilling of his promise that a child should be born a son should be given to us and would infer that they which hold infants not visible Churchmembers must deny Christ to have been an infant 5. Nor do I know that to be true that in things which Christ was capable of he did that first in his own body which he would after do in the bodies of his Church For he would and did innumerable things in the bodies of his Church as to marry beget children c. which he did not in his own body first though he was capable of them 6. I deny that Christ as man was in infancy the Prophet of his Church visibly and in actu exercito Let Mr. B. when he will assault it there will appear in his contradiction vileness and manifold falshood none in this opinion And for his inference if an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples I grant both and yet deny that Christ was visibly audibly in actu exercito in his infancy in his humane nature the Prophet of his Church or that any infants are actually Disciples visibly till they hear the Gospel and profess the faith nor am I ashamed to aver that he is no Prophet that prophesieth not that they are no Disciples that learn not But Mr. B. proceeds 4. Saith he As the war is here proclaimed and the General or chief Commander constituted so next here is a natural enmity put into the whole seed of the woman or humane race against the whole seed of the serpent that then was or the Diabolical nature This is plain both in the text and in the experience of the fulfilling of it As in the instrumental serpent it is the whole serpentine nature that hath an enmity to the humane nature and the whole humane nature to the serpentine nature they being venemous to us and wee abhorring them as venemous and as such as our lives are in danger of so is it the whole humane nature that is at enmity to the Diabolical nature Vide Muscul. Calvin Luther in locum All men have naturally as great an abhorrence of the Devil as of a serpent they
controversie But whether also the first original corrupted nature it selfe before any sin against recovering grace did contain an habitual enmity against the Kingdome of the Redeemer or whether the sins of later parents may propagaâ—e this as an addiâ—ional corruption in our nature I will not now stand to discuss Onely as to our present business it s certain that the general natural enmity to Satan may consist with an habitual friendship to his ways and cause And though as men they may have the first common advantage of nature and as subjects de jure may be under the common obligation yea and as listed in Christs Army may have man of its priviledges yet for the enmity of disposition to Christ they may be under a greater curse 10. As it is certain that it is not onely Christ himself that is here made the object of this promise and is here called the seed of the woman as is before proved and may be more and is commonly granted so it is to be noted that those others in whom this enmity are put are called here the seed of the woman and not the seed of Christ though the chief of them are his seed And so though the promise is made to none but the the womans seed and no exception put in against infants or any age of all her seed Till you can prove that infants are none of her seed we must take this fundamental promise to extend to infants and that very plainly without using any violence with the Text. Answ. This tedious discourse of Mr. B. is indeed serpentiâ—e with winding in and out wrigling and wresting the Text one while it is a promise another while a precept sometimes meant of one sort of enmity sometimes of another sometimes the woman under one consideration sometimes under another sometimes the seed of the woman comprehend all the natural seed sometime onely one kind with so many ambiguous speeches and unproved dictates and inconsequent inferences that I know not what better to term it then the way of a serpent on a rock which the Wise man said was too wonderfull for him and one of the things he knew not Prov. 30.20 21. And sure when I yeeld to acknowledge this discourse as a convincing proof of the law and ordinance of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed which Mr. B. asserts I shall deliver my self as a Pupil to him take him for an infallible Oracle and profess blind obedience But let me see what I can make of this Riddâ—e The sum of it so far as I can collect is this Here is an enmity proclaimed legally against the Devils pravity malignity and works hâ—reby all the seed natural of the woman are obliged to list themselves in Christs Army or the woman as a believer is to list all her infant progeny in the Redeemers Army infants being part of her seed and no exception put in against infants or any age of all her seed this fundamental promise extends to them and all duly listed are visible Churchmembers Ergo here is the fundamental law or ordinance for infants visible Churchmembership by promise and precept unrepealed To discern how silly and insipid these arguings are if I may use â—r Bs. own phrase let us grant him here is a promise and precept implied and inquire what listing is here enjoyned of whom by whom and how far this makes the listed visible Churchmembers The listing is not here exprest but in his book of Baptism p. 14. he saith They are first made Disciples and then solemnly admitted eâ—tred or listed by baptism P. 24 As every one that must be admitted solemnly into the Army must be admitted by listing as the solemn engaging sâ—gne so every one that hath right to be solemly admitted into the visible Church must ordinarily bee admitted by baptism Christs listing engaging signe The persons to be listed are according to Mr. B. mankinde the woman and her seed even infants no exception being put in against infants or any age of her seed The persons that are to list are each man for he saith It is the duty of mankinde to list themselves infants being at the parents dispose it is they that are to list them in Christs army and this listing which he counts duely done makes infants visible Churchmembers Concerning which I grant that God doth proclaim here an enmity against the Diabolical praviâ—y malignity and works and that it is the duty of mankinde to fight against satan to joyn with Christ For this is no more but that God forbids sin and it 's our duty to resist â—t and to believe and follow Christ and here is a fundamenâ—al promise that they who do so shall bruise the serpents head or prevail against satan Nor do I deny that it is the duty of parents yea of all men to do what lies in them to engage persons even iâ—fants to this war provided they do it by wayes allowed and appointed as by their prayers vowes to God or the like But it is utterly false 1. that there is any precept of listing by baptism here for baptism is a mere positive rite of the New Testament not enjoyned here 2. That it is the duty of all mankinde to list themselves For then it is their duty to baptise themselves 3. That it is the duty of the woman to list her self and all her seed For then she had been bound to baptise her self and the children of unbelievers as well as believers Cains seed as well as Abels and if it were supposed that she had lived to this day she had been bound to list all the infants at least of the professed Infidels at this day For if it were a precept unrepealed it must have bound her still 4. That such a listing as Mr. Bs. words import is either duly done or that the listed in that manner are all visible Churchmembers 5. That here is any fundamental promise made to persons so listed 6. That as listed in Christs army in the manner Mr. B conceives infants have the priviledge of Christs soldiers None of these things denied by me have a word of proof in all this pâ—olix discourse nor do I imagine any proof for them can be from this text and therefore conceive his discourse without proof and like the dream of a sick man or the dotage of a phantastick He adds 11. Some learned men do use contemptible arguments to prove further That the sanctifying enmity is here promised to the seed of the woman as her seed I mean those that go the way of Dr. Ward Mr. Bedford c. that is that as the two former sorts of enmity are put into all the seed of the woman as is explained so the spiritual holy enmity promised to her seed as she is a believer 12. And some learned men do accordingly conclude That the impiety of parents may do much to hinder their children from that blessing more then by original sin they were hindered and therefore their faith
are only to the elect for to the Heirs of promise Gods counsell is shewed to be immutable for their salvation Heb. 6.17 But so it is onely to the elect Ergo. 9. Those promises by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature are made onely to the elect But such are the promises of saving benefits 2 Pet. 1.4 Ergo. 10. The promise of that Covenant is made onely to the elect of which Christ is surety for Christs suretiâ—hip engageth him to perform it and he performs it onely to the elect therefore he is surety of the covenant onely for the elect But the promise of saving benefits is of that covenant of which Christ is surety Heb. 7.22 Ergo. 11. That covenant which is confirmed by Christs blood is made onely with the elect for it was shed for them onely But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Matth 26 28. Ergo. 12. That covenant which is different from the first covenant in that it is not an occasion of complaint in that it was broken and they continued not in it is made onely to the elect But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.7 8 9. Ergo. 13. The covenant which ingageth God to write his lawes in the hearts of those to whom it is made â—s made onely to the elect for God doth this onely to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 8.10 10.16 Ergo. 14. The covenant of which Christ is Mediator is made onely to the elect for he is mediator for them onely sith he prayes for them onely John 17.9 And he is Mediator of the new covenant that by means of death they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance Heb. 9.15 But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 12.24 Ergo. 15. That covenant which is an everlasting Covenant is made onely to the elect for the covenant with reprobates is not everlasting But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Heb. 13.20 Ergo 16 That in which are given the sure mercies of David is made onely to the elect for no other have them given to them But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace Isa. 55.3 Ergo. 17. That covenant which engageth God to give to them to whom it is made deliverance from all enemies and to serve God in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of their life without fear is made onely to the elect for to them onely God performs it But such is the covenant of grace Luke 1.73 74 75. Ergo That covenant which assures perseverance to them to whom it was made is made onely to the elect for they onely persevere But such is the new covenant of grace Isa. 54 9 10. Jer. 32 40. Ergo. 19. If the covenant of grace be made with other than the elect then it is the absolute or condiâ—ionall covenant as Mr B. distinguisheth but neither Not the first as Mr B. confesseâ—h nor the conditionall for it is made onely with believers and they are onely the elect I grant it is propounded as Dr Twisse speaks Animad in Corinth Defens pag. 235 or as others say offered or tendered to others but made with the elect Ergo. If the covenant of grace be made to any other than to the elect then with all which seems to be Mr. Bs opinion when he saith Plain Scripture Proof c. pag 316 The new Covenant is conditionall and universall But it is not made withall That covenant which was made with all had Adam for the common head but the new covenant was not made with Adam as the common head but with Christ who is given for a covenant of the people Isai. 49.8 and therefore rhe promise was that the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head Gen. 3.15 which Mr B most corruptly interprets Of the whole seed of the woman infants as well as others Plain Scripture proof c. part 1. Chap. 24. pag. 69 but it is true primarily or onely of Christ Heb. 2.14 But Christ is not a common head to all but onely to the elect who are chosen in him Eph. 1.3 4. Ergo I omit the Arguments which Doctor Twisse urgeth in his Animadversions on Corinus pag. 346. Answer to M. Hoard pag. 283.286 Doctor Kendall Vindic. part 3. ch 18 pag. 14 15 and hasten to consider what Mr B. saith further against me And he saith in his Examen and Apology that Mr M. speakes like Corinus and the Arminians in his asserting the conditional sealing and when he talks of the Covenant Christs suretiship c. To which I answer A great many hotspurs of this age do make any thing Arminianism which is but contradictory to Antinomianism I will not say Mr T. is an Antinomian for I think he is not but this opinion that the covenant of grace which baptism sealeth is onely to the elect and is not conditionall is one of the two Master-pillars in the Antinomian Fabrick Answer 1. If any Antinomian or Antipaedobaptist hath been in this age a verier hot-spur than Mr B. let him be disciplin'd at Bedlem For my part I know none that hath in his Writings shewed so much heat call it fury or zeal as you please with so much confidence and peremptoriness and so many mistakes against Antinomians Antipaedobaptists and others as he haâ—h don And surely they want not considerate men that fear lest the esteem he â—aâ—h gotten by his practical Writings and for infant-baptism and the Ministery may occasion the swallowing down of some things he vents about universâ—ll redemption universall covenant of grace uncertainty of perseverance and salvation the condition of justification which withâ—ut more than a grain of salt will turn to Aâ—minianiâ—m and Popery if received by such understandings as are not of good concoction Nor do I know any man who under so great a shew of seâ—king truth and peace in the Church hath more hindred both For thaâ— whâ—ch he saith That this opinion that the covenant of grace is onely to elect and is nâ—t conditionall is one of the pillars of Antinomianism I have made some search into my books and made use of my memory and though I find that in the Synod at New Town in New England August 30 1637 this is made the 81 Error of the Antinomians That where faith is held forth by the Ministery as the condition of the â—ovenant of grace on mans part as also evidencing justification by sanctification and the activity of faith in that Church there is not sufficienâ— bread And in other books they are charged wiâ—h error in holding the covenant of grace absolute so as if by it men were exempted from duty they were justified without faith c. Yet I never to my remembrance heard thâ—s charged with Antinomianism that the covenant of grace is made onely to the elect but find it avouched by many of their best Antagonists and the covenant
of the Israelites when brought out of Egypt and then God said live to them when they had been ready to perish in Canaan first and then in Egypt by oppression and after brought them to mount Sinai and entered into the covenant of the Law which Mr. C. â—ndeavoring to apply to an Ecclesiastical external priviledge of Gentile believers infants in the time of the Gospel doth toto Coelo errare It is neither said there to Jerusalâ—m then live nor Micah 7.20 that the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob God did both swear to other Jew fathers of families or that there is mention of pardon of sins externally made over to them or pleaded there for that end v. 18 19 And though I deny not that in respect of the covenant made with Iacob at Bethel Gen. 35.9 10 11 12 13 14 15. God is said there to speake with Israel in Hoseah his dayes Hos. 12.2 yet I deny there is a word that saith that external Church interest of inchurched Gentile believers infants is Gospel Nor is there any thing 2 Sam. 23.4 5 about external covenant-Church-interest but of the peculiar promise made to David of the continuing the kingdome to his posterity which having its full accomplishment in Christ Acts. 2.30 was indeed in that respect the covenant of grace and was so believed both by David and all believers before Christ that it should be done and now by all believers that it is done But this promise was made of Davids house only not of every particular believers and therefore it is impertinently brought to prove that it is Gospel that to every believers house God hath made such a Covenant or that the children of every believer have an external covenant interest with the parent As for the instances of Eve and Lamech concerning Seth and Noah Gen. 4.25 and 5.29 ther 's no mention of any Covenant nor that these were Covenant babes much less of a Covenant belonging to all believing parents with their children but an acknowledgment in the former that God had appointed Eve another seed insteed of Abel whom Cain slew in respect of the preisthood say some others in respect of propogating mankind others because of Christ to come from him in the other a prophesy of Noah that he should comfort them concerning their worke and toil of their hands because of the ground which the Lord had cursed which is concieved by some as meant of the invention of plowing vide Christoph. Cartwright in locum the new Annot. follow that sense But were it true Eve had respect in that speech Gen. 4.25 to the promise Gen. 3.15 and that she believed God would continue the Church in Seth's posterity and that thence came the distinctions of the sons of God and daughters of men Gen. 6.1 2. and Lamech believed that Noah should be a root as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world should be destroyed yet all this is noteâ—ing to the point Mr. C. should prove that it is Gospel that the children of every inchurched Gentile-believer have an externall covenant church-interest there being in those Texts not a word of such an externall covenant Church-interest nor of any generall promise to them but onely a mention of speeches which had their rise from particular Revelations about those persons which are there mentioned Psalm 102.25 26 27 there 's not a word of the externall Federall Church state of inchurched Gentile Church-believers But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon and were the prayer of the Iews as v. 13 14 makes it probable then it seems to be meant as the new Annotations on Psa. 102.28 thus The children of thy Servants shal continue This is the literal as I may call it immortality proposed in the Law to them that fear of God their surviving in their posterity If of the Saints prophecying of the calling of the Gentiles or as some would of the reingraffing of the Iewes that Paraphrase of Junius may be right â— Vera germana Ecclesiae tuae membra conservabuntur in aeternum virtute tua tibi curae futura sunt Take iâ— of whomsoever the words may be verified it mentions no such thing as externall federall Church-interest but continuance and establishment before God that is as Ainsworth notes as much as so long as God doth dure meaning for ever For assurance whereof they had a word of faith to wit some revelation of God though no such covenant as Mr C. imagines intâ—tuling children of inchurched Gentile-believers to externall Church-interest Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federall interest of believers infants to be Gospel because from the beginning and he begins with Gen. 3.15 to prove that it was held as Gospel that the Species of the infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the Verge of the Covenant of Grace as if infants of believers were a Species and not Individuals or that it were denied that some infants were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace And then he dictates without proof that Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind or if as a Church more likely as the seminall invisible than as the visible Church He interprets The Seed of the Woman not onely of the principall Seed Christ in and by whom it was ratified and fulfilled but her Church-seed also whom the same promise did comprehend But I would know of Mr C. whether Cain were not her Church-seed who by Mr C. his Dictates was the infant of inchurched believers For Adam and Eve were eyed saith Mr C. as a seminall visible Church If so then it is true of Cain that he should bruize the Serpens head as Eves church-seed which how he did unless being of the wicked one and slaying his brother as is said of him 1 John 3.12 be bruising the Serpents head I understand not Many Interpreters comprehend Cain under the Serpents seed but none I have met with comprehend him or any reprobate under the Womans Seed mystically understood There are Interpreters that understand the promise Gen. 3.15 as made to mankind in respect of the naturall Serpent and the best of Christs destroying the works of the Divel as John speaks 1 Epist. 3.8 and others of the elect overcoming Satan and treading him under their feet Rom. 16.20 But none do I find who understand it of infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest Believers it is true are called Abrahams seed but no where true believers as such are called Eves Church-seed nor doth Eve by faith from thence thus interpret the scope of the promise Gen. 4.25 26. And if infants be meant by the womans seed Gen. 3.15 in a spirituall sense of overcoming the Divel yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby sith no other overcome the Divell So that it is so far from being true
lawfulness of the living of a believing wife with an unbelieving husband will as well prove the lawfulness of a believing fornicatrix living with an unbelieving fornicator as may appear saith he by a syllogistical analysis of the Apostles argument the major whereof is this That man and woman may live together notwithstanding the unbelief of one party whereof one iâ— sanctâ—fied to the â—ther for begetting an holy seed This is manifeâ—â—ly the Apostles reason after our interpretation But Mr. T. is manifestly mistaken not to mention the liberty that â—e will scarce allow another to leave out husband and wife exprest in the Text and instead of it to put man and woman The Apostle doth not concludâ— the lawfulness of their marriage society by the federation of their issue but shews that tâ—e supposed and feared non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulness And I dare yeeld that any man anâ— woman may live together notwithstanding any fear of the unholiness of their issue where one is sanctified by the faith of another to the begetting of an holy seed And if Mr. T. will apply this which the Apostle speaks of a mans living with his wife ad faciendum populum to the living wiâ—h his whore there is no danger to yeeld it Pharez his issue had belonged to the Commonweal of Israel if Thamar had been an infidel as for ought wee know in all probability it was with Jephtaes mother If Sampson had issue by the harlot of Gaza Judg. 16.1 such issue had belonged to Israel such â—ssue male had right to circumcision To gratifie Mr. T. I shall put it under my hand that if a man have no other reason from Scripture to leave his harlot then the non-federation of his issue he may still abide with her Answ. There is no mistake in my argument nor is there any answer at all made by Mr. Bl. to it which hee either wittingly or unwittingly I judge not certain I am he doth manifestly mistake He tels me The Apostle doth not conclude the lawfulness of their marriage society by the federation of their issue whereby he intimates as if I said he did and that therein was my mistake But let my words be viewed Apol. sect 18. p. 96. Postscript sect 7. p. 122. Review part 1. sect 22 36. and it will appear that I frame not the argument so according to the Apostle â—ightly onderstood but as Mr. M. and others interpret him I said the Apostle concludes the lawfulness of their living together by the sanctification of the husband though an unbeliever to or in the wife and that the proposition of the Apostle is They may live together whereof one is sanctified in the other the assumption is But the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife Ergo. Now the major with Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bls. exposition hath this sense They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other for the begetting a holy seed for so they expound the Apostle But according to them the vnbelieving fornicator is sanctified by the believing fornicatrix for the begetting a holy seed which is confessed by them By Mr. Bl. here when he saith The issue of Tamar Jephtha's mother the Harlot at Gaza were holy federally and for the major there is no necessity of putting in husband and wife sith as Mr. Bl. saith p 334. The stress is wholly laid upon the believing party as to the holiness of the issue and here I dare yeeld saith he that any man and woman may live together notwithstanding any fear of the unholiness of their issue where one is sanctified by the faith of another to the begetting of an holy seed Now put all these together The Apostle argues the believer may live with the unbeliever because the one is sanctified in the other and this sanctifying is according to Mr. Ms. and Mr. Bls. exposition for the begetting a holy seed and this begetting of a holy seed according to Mr. Bl. is ascribed wholly to the faith of the one parent it 's a result or fruit of the parents faith whether married or unmarried therefore according to Mr. Bls. exposition of the Apostle â—he lawfulness of living together is deduced from thâ—t which doth as well agâ—ee to fornicators as the married and consequently â—he lawfulness of living together in fornication is inferred from the Apostles reason as Mr. Bl. and Mr. M. and others expound it as well as of husband and wife It is true I would not allow another to leave husband and wife exprest in the text out of the argument framed by me according to my exposition which is the Apostles meaning as I conceive because I lay the whole stress upon those terms and still contend that no persons are sanctified one in or to another but the husband and wife and that these are so sanctified whether one or both or neither are believers But if I frame the reason according to Mr. Ms. Mr. Bls. and others interpretation of the Apostle I am to be allowed to leave them out sith by them no stress is laid on the husband and wife or conjugal relation but the faith of one party That there was any such fear of non-federation of issue or supposition of it in the Corinthians if they livid together cannot be evinced from the text but the contrary is manifest by the arguing from the uncleanness of their children as an absurdity in their apprehensions and the holiness of them as a thing known and certain to them as the particle else shews and therefore that the Apostle shews that the feared and supposed non-federation doth not conclude the unlawfulness is but a fiction nor doth the Apostle make any such distinction between concluding the lawfulness and the not concluding the unlawfulness between which if there bee any distinction which yet I perceive not yet it is certain that the words v. 12 13. let him not put her away let her not leave him are a positive resolution of the lawfulness of their continuing together in marriage society and the reason shews v. 14. that the doubt was of the believers conjunction with the unbeliever because he was an unsanctified person and consequently the reason of the doubt was not the fear of the non-federation of issue but the unlawfulness of marriage society with an infidel unsanctified and consequently it is a monstrous addition which Mr. Bl. seems to put either into the conclusion thus let her not leave him if this be all the fear the non-federation of issue or in the reason They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other party so as that there is no fear of the non federation of their issue there being nothing in the text for this addition Yet if it were put in it will justifie my odious inference as hee terms it For let the major be thus after Mr. Bls. minde They may live together whereof one is sanctified by the faith of the other so as
were prohibited to be circumcised it being limitted to the males on the 8. day Mr. M. addes I also obiter desire you to remember this expression of yours that it had been a sin for a child to have been circumcised after the eight day was past and try how you will reconcile this with another opinion of yours delivered elsewhere viz. That Circumcision might be administred oftner then once surely those other times must be after the 8. day Answ. Where I deliver this that Circumcision might be administred oftner than once I remember not except in my Examen page 118. However I conceive no necessity of Circumcision or baptism above once yet I profess my self unsatisfyed in this that there is either a command that a person be but once circumcised or a person once onely baptized And my reason of the speech is from hence 1 Cor. 7.18 the Apostle saith Is one called circumcised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him not be drawn up that is let him not draw up his foreskin we translate it Let him not become uncircumcised Whence it may be perceived that some Jews had an art to draw up their fore-skin Now in such a case while the Law stood in force I conceive he was bound to be circumcised again because it was to abide in his flesh Gen. 17.13 Nor do my words at all contradict this when I say more fully then Mr. M. recites them It had been a sin for a child to be circumcised afore or after the eigth day in them that altered or swerved from the appointment of God where I make the sin not to be the doing of it on the eighth day and then doing it again though I deny not but unnecessarily to do it after the eight day had been sin that day being determined for it but not doing it that day which God appointed by those that altered or swerved from that appointment unnecessarily which in the case mentioned and any other of the like might be done after the eighth day But M. M. will confirm his proofs that the women were circumcised in the men My first saith he to me was that the whole house of Israel are in the Scripture said to be circumcised You answer that by the whole house of Israel must not be meant all but the Major part But Sir do you imagine that any of your judicious Readers can be satisfyed with this answer when you know well enough that the Circumcision is put for the Church and people of God in opposition to the uncircumcised that is all the rest of the World who were not the people of God When Peter was to go to the circumcision and Paul to the Gentiles to preach the Gospel does not circumcision include the women Jews as much as the men in opposition to Gentiles as well as the word Gentiles includes women Gentiles as well as the men to whom Paul was sent Gal. 2.8 9. Surely it must needs be granted that not only the Major or nobler part but the whole nation of the Jews both men and women are there meant by circumcision which could not have been if in some sense they were not to be accounted circumcised Answ. My Answer might satisfie any judicious Reader specially if the texts had been fairly set down by Mr. M. wherein I shew all Israel and all the house of Israel must be understood Synecdochically 1 Sam. 7.3 Acts 2.36 Acts 13.24 And if in the term circumcision be not a Synecdoche of the whole for the part not onely every individual in Israel must be in some sense accounted circumcised but be actually circumcised also in their own persons Nor against such a Synecdoche doth it make that circumcision stands in opposition to the uncircumcised which is meant of every individual For neither is it true when the uncircumcised are mentioned it is meant of every individual there being many of those nations that were circumcised and if it were true yet the opposition doth not prove every individual Jew circumcised any more then when they are called the holy Nation in opposition to the Gentiles as when it was said Israel was holiness to the Lord Jerem. 2.3 every Israelite or Jew must be counted holy in some sense but the terms are attributed Synecdochically And for the other instance I grant circumcision must include Gal. 2.8 women as well as men because Peter was to go to them but this proves not that women were in some sense accounted circumcised in the males but that they are part of the nation which were called the Circumcision Synecdochically because of the males And for the term Gentiles there must be in like manner a Synecdoche conceived of the whole for a part else he should be sent to preach to infant males as well as women of years Secondly saith Mr. M. I argued thus no uncircumcised might eat the Passoever Ergo their women might not have eaten it if in some sense they had not been circumcised Your answer is This is to be limitted pro subjecta maâ—eria none that ought to be circumcised might eat the Passeover unless they were circumcised But this answer is altogether insufficient For where is this distinction of yours found or founded in the word of God other Distinctions about eating the Passeover are cleerly found the clean might eat it the unclean might not eat it the circumcised might the uncircumcised might not But of your limitation there is altum silentium Answ. Mr. Ms. conclusion is That in some sense women were circumcised and before in some sense they were counted circumcised neither of which is the same with this they were circumcised virtually in the males or the males were circumcised in their stead as their Proxy or Atturney 2. My answer was right and to his Demand where it is found in the word of God I answer by another demand where is his limitation found in Gods word that women might eat the Passeover because they were in some sense accounted circumcised Sure the words are Exod. 12.48 No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof not as Mr. M. none but those that are counted in some sense circumcised may eat thereof If there be in Scripture that which doth necessitate to a limitation of that speech my limitation is as well in Scripture as his is yea my limitation is plain and easie whereas his limitation is liable to this objection that when Gods Law requires persons to be circumcised that they might eat the Passeover if Mr Ms. limitation or explication be good it should require no more but this that persons in some sense should be accounted circumcised For so Mr. M. understands the Law and then though the males were not actually circumcised but virtually in some sense so accounted they might eat it without breach of the Law which absurdity doth not follow on my limitation but follows inevitably on Mr. Ms. 2. Saith Mr. M. I demand further where is there any command or institution for women to eat the Passeover
yet more advantagious 3. But how ever it be of the title to glory or eternity it 's most certain that according to the very law of nature infants were to have been Churchmembers if man had stood The first text therefore that I cite for infants Churchmembership as expressing its original de jure is Gen. 1.26 27 28. So God created man in his own image And God blessed them and God said unto them Be fruitfull and multiply and replenish the earth Here you see by the law of nâ—ture infants were to have been born in Gods image and in innocency and so Churchmembers And note that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their owne estate to bee as the parents were even in Gods image Answ. 1. If this prove their Churchmembership it proves not their visible Churchmembership of which onely is the question 2. If it prove a law or ordinance yet it proves not such a law or ordinance as is in question which is not a law or ordinance de jure but de eventu that so it shall be or they shall be so accounted For such a law or ordinance of their visible Churchmembership onely can infer their admission as visible Churchmembers they being to be actually visible Churchmembers afore admission according to Mr. Bs. own dictates and therefore not de jure onely such 3. If it did prove such a law or ordinance yet it proves it not to be by such a promise and precept as Mr. B asserts 4. If it did yet it onely proves it of the Church by nature which hath a great difference from the Church by grace this being onely by election and calling not by birth 5. If this law or ordinance be unrepealed then it is in force and according to the law of nature invariable that man be born without sin For man is born according to the law of procreation Gen. 1.28 and if this were the law of nature that the first blessing that God pronounceth on mankind is that they propagate children in their own estate to be as the parents were even in Gods image then still the law of nature continues and so there is no original sin or it is repealed and so it is not such a law as Mr. B. asserts 6. The words God created blessed do note onely a transeunt fact and therefore what ever Divines imagine about Gods Covenant with man this passage onely tells what God did but mentions no such law or ordinance by promise or precept as Mr. B. conceives and therefore it is manifestly impertinent to his purpose Let 's view the next and main Text. The next institution saith Mr. B. of infants Churchmembership was at the first proclamation of grace to faln man or in the first promise of redemption to sinners in Gen. 3.15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel I will prove that this fundamental Covenant of grace or promise doth declare it to be the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers And to this end let us first consider what the words expresly contain and then what light may be fetcht from other Texts to illustrate them It being a known rule that an Expositor must not turn universals into singulars or particulars nor restrain and limit the Scripture generals where the word it self or the nature of the subject doth not limit them I may well conclude that these things following are comprehended in this fundamental promise 1. That the Devil having played the enemy to mankind and brought them into this sin and misery God would not leave them remediless nor to that total voluntary subjection to him as he â—â—ght have done But in grace 〈◊〉 undeserved mercy would engage them in a war against him in which they that conâ—uered should bruise his head 2. That in this war the Lord Jesus Christ the principal seed is promised to be our General whose perfect nature should contain and his perfect life express a perfect enmity against Satan and who should make a perfect coâ—quest over him 3. The Lord Jesus is promised to do this work as the womâ—ns seed and so as conceived of her and born by her and so as an infant first before he comes to ripeness of age So that here an infant of the woman is promised to be the General of this Army and Head of the Church This is most evident By which God doth sanctifie the humane birth and the infant state and assure us that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church which he admitted into the Church by the laws of creation For the first promise is of an infant born of the woman to be the Head of the Church and growing up to maturity to do the works of a Head Had God excluded the infant state from the visible Church he would not have made the Head first an infant Where note 1. That Christ is the great exemplar of his Church and in things which he was capable oâ— he did that first in his own body which he would after do in theirs 2. That the Head is a Member even the principal Member one of the two parts which constitute the whole As the pars impâ—rans and pars subdita do constitute each Commonwealth So that it an infant must be a member eminently so called then infants are not excluded from membership but are hereby clearly warranted to be members of a lower nature If an infant may be Soveraign no doubt he may be a Subject If an infant may be the chief Prophet of the Church then no doubt but infants may be Disciples If you still harp on the old strâ—ng and say They are no Disciples that learn not you may as well say He is no Prophet that teacheth not And if you will openly deny Christ in infancy to have been the Prophet of the Church I will undertake to prove the falshood and vileness of that opinion as soon as I know you own it The promise then of an infant Head doth declare Gods mind that he will have infants members because the head is the principal member Answ. The thing to be proved by Mr. B. is that there is a law or ordinance of God unrepealed that not onely in the Church Jewish but in the Christian properly so called the infants of believers by vertue of Gods promise to be the God of the faithfull and their seed and a precept to parents to accept of the mercy offered and re-engage them to God should be and be taken to be visible members But that he takes upon him to prove is that it is the will of God that infants should be Churchmembers that he doth not exclude now that age from the redeemed Church that he excluded not the infant state from the visible Church that it is his mind that he will have infant members all which we might
apprehend him to be their enemy they abhor the very name and remembrance of him If they do but dream of him it terrifieth them they are afraid of seeing him in any apparition If they know any temptation to be from him so far they dislike it and abhor it though for the thing presented they may cherish it This is not special saving grace but this is a great advantage to the work of special grace and to our more effectual resisting of temptations and entertaining the help tâ—at is offered us against them when our very natures have an enmity to the diabolical nature we now look on him as having the power of death as Gods executioner and our destroyer and malicious adversary And if there be any Witch or other wicked person that hath contracted such familiarity amity with him as that this natural enmity is thereby overcome that proveth not that it was not naturally there but that they by greater wickedness are grown so far unnatural 5. As this enmity is established in the nature of mankinde against the diabolical nature so is there a further enmity legally proclaimed against the diabolical pravity malignity and works Vide Pareum in locum God will put an enmity by his Laws both natural and positive making it the duty of mankinde to take Satan for their enemy to resist and use him as an enemy and fight against him and abhor his works and so to list themselves under the General that fighteth against him to take his colours and to be of his Army And this being spoken of the common world of mankinde and not onely of the elect for it is not they onely that are obliged to this hostility and warfare belongeth to each one according to their capacities and therefore infants being at the parents disâ—ose it is they that are to list them in this army against the enemy of mankinde of which more anon 6. A third and higâ—er enmity is yet here comprehended and that is an habitual or dispositive enmity against the diabolical malignity pravity and works which may bee called natural as it is the bent or bias of our new nature This God giveth onely to his chosen and not to all And it containeth not onely their consent to list themselves in his army against satan but specially and properly a hatred to him as the Prince of unrighteousness and a cordial resolution to fight against him and his worâ—s universally to the death with a complacency in God and his service and souldiers Hâ—re take a short prospect of the mysterious blessed Trinity As God is one in three and in his entity hath unity verity and goodness and in his blessed nature hath posse scire velle power wisdome and love so as from these is he related both to his created and redeemed rational creatures as absolute proprietary as soveraign ruler and as most gracious benefactour As Lord of our nature he hath put the foresaid enmity between the humane nature and the Diabolical As soveraign Ruler he hath by legislation imposed on us a further enmity as our duty that we should be listed in his army profess open hostility against satan and fight against him to the death As Benefactor he giveth special grace to do this to his chosen As he is Lord of all so the first is done on the natures of all As he is Rector of all but not by the same Laws as to positives so he obligeth all to this hostility but not all as he doth those that hear the Gospel As he is Benefactor he doth with his own as he list and makes a difference If any say that it is the same enmity that is here said to bee put in all and therefore the same persons in which it is put I answer 1. there 's no proof of either A general command or promise to a community may signifie a difference of duties or gifts to that community though that difference be not expressed For the nature of the subject may prove it And 2. experience of the fulfilling of this promise or covenant proves the difference before mentioned And it 's well known 1. That Moses is so concise in the History of these matters 2. And that the mystery of grace was to bee opened by degrees and so but darkly at the first that it is no wonder if we find the whole sum of the Gospel here coucht-up in so narrow a room and if each particular be not largely laid open before our eyes 7. That wee may certainly know that this promise speaks not onely of the enmity that Christ himself should have to satan and doth not engage a General without an army God doth here expresly mention the woman her self saying I will put enmity between thee and the woman so that as shee stood in a threefold respect she is here her self possessed with this threefold enmity 1. As she is the root of humane nature from whence all mankinde must spring she is possest with the natural enmity to the diabolical nature and this to bee naturally convayed or propagated 2. As she was the root of the great Republick of the world or that rational society which God as Rector would sapientially govern and her self with her husband who no doubt was also included in the promise were the whole then existent race of mankinde so did she receive a legal enmity of obligation which she was traditionally to deliver down to all her posterity being her self hereby obliged to list her self and all her infant progeny in the Redeemers army against the proclaimed enemy and to teach her posterity to do the like For thus obligatory precepts must be brought down 3. As she was one of the chosen favourites of God she received the habitual enmity of sanctification And this is not in her power to propagate though shâ—e may use some means that are appointed thereto and whether a promise of any such thing be made to her seed on the use of such means I will not now stand to discuss 8. It is not all that are possessed with the natâ—raâ— enmity against the Divel himself that are the Church of Christ For this is but a common preparative which is in all Nor is it all that are obliged to the further enmity against the works of satan But all that on that obligation are duely listed in Christs army against satan by the obliged person are visible members and all that are by sanctification at a hearty enmity habitual or actual with the Kingdome of satan are members of the Church called mystical or invisible This I put as granted 9. Those that violate this fundamental obligation and to their natural pravity shall add a fighting against Christ and his Kingdome for Satan and his Kingdome are become themselves the seed of the Serpent And though they had the natural enmity with the rest of mankind in general against Satan yet have they therewithal the habitual enmity against Christ. This much I suppose as out of
Abraham and Sarah the rock whence they were hewen and the hole of the pit whence they were digged Abraham their father and Sarah that bare them and mentioning Gods calling him alone blessing him and increasing him as the cause of it which doth prove that it was by the transeunt fact which I described not by Mr. Bs promise and precept that they were Churchmembers and this as a new thing God having chosen no other people of the earth as he did the Jews Deut. 7.6 And therefore I deny Mr. Bs. minor and conclude that visible Church-membership of infants was onely in the nation of the Hebrews not by a promise to be a God to believers and their seed and a precept to parents to dedicate them to God and list them in Christs Army but by the transeunt fact of calling Abraham blessing multiplying him bringing them out of Aegypt to himself which was to be demonstrated Lâ—tâ—s yet view Mr Bs. confirmations whether they be any better then his primitive establishments SECT LIX The sayings of Adam Eve Noah concerning Cain Seth Shem the term sons of God Gen. 6.2 prove not Mr. Bs. law of infants visible Church-membership unrepealed NOw for the Texts saith he that further intimate such a foregoing establishment 1. There seems to be some believing intimation of this in Adams naming his wife the mother of the living For it is to be noted what Bp Usher saith Annal vol. 1. p. 2. Unde tum primum post semen promissum mulieri Evae nomen a marito est impositum Gen. 3.20 quod mater esset omnium viventium non naturalem tantum vitam sed illud quoque quod est per fidem in semen ipsius Messiam promissum quomodo post eam Sara fidelium mater est habita 1 Pet. 3.6 Gal. 4.31 He put this name on her after the promise because she was to be the mother of all the living not onely that live the life of nature but that which is by faith in the Messiah her seed So that as she was the root of our nature we are her natural seed and as she was a believer and we the seed of her a believer so is she the mother of a holy seed and we that are her seed are holy as a people visibly dedicated to God Answ. Though the exposition were allowed and the inference thereon that we that are her seed that is by faith in the Messiah are holy yet it follows not that we are so as a people visibly dedicated to God much less that our infants are so without their own faith by vertue of their parents dedication And therefore this Text according to Mr. Bs. exposition which yet may be questioned yeelds no confirmation of infants visible Churchmembership unrepealed 2. Saith he When Cain was born his mother called him possession because she had obtained a man of the Lord that is saith Ainsworth with his favour and of his good will and so a son of promise and of the Church And therefore it is to be noted that when Cain had sinned by killing his brother God did curse him and cast him out of his presence Gen. 4.14 16. So that he was excommunicate and separated from the Church of God saith Ainsworth that is from the place of Gods word and worship which in likelihood was held by Adam the father who being a prophet had taught his children how to sacrifice and serve the Lord. So on the contrary to come into Gods presence or before him 1 Chron. 16.29 is explained in Psal. 96 8. to be the comming into his Courts Very many learned men give the same exposiâ—ion of it Now if Cain were now excommunicate then was he before of the Church nay it 's certain by his sacrificing and other proof however this Text be interpreted But no man can give the least reason from Scripture to make it so probable 〈◊〉 he entred into the Church at any other time as we give of his entrance at his nativity Answ. Eve doth not say that she possessed a son of God member of the Church from the Lord but a man by vertue of the power given to the parents for procreation Gen. 1.28 notwithstanding the curse Gen. 3.16 which was from the Lord Psal 127.3 Gen. 30.2 that is by his providence and in some respect with his favour and good will considering her desert and danger it was that she possessed him when both their lives were in so great hazard That Cain was a Churchmember visible from his infancy hath no probability there being no hint of it in that Text or any other The proofs that infant visible Church-membership was onely in the Hebrew Nation have beene shewed before Also saith Mr. B. When Eve bare Seth she so named him as a son of mercy in faith as appointed her by the Lord to be in Abels room faithfull as Abel and the father of our Lord afteâ— the flesh as Ainsworth on Gen. 4.25 And is there no intimation in this that Seth was an infant member of the visible Church I confess he that shall excommunicate this appointed seed or saith that Seth was without the Church in his infancy doth speak in my ears so improbably and so unlike the Scripture that I am very confident I shall never believe him Answ. Nor should I meaning as Mr. Ainsworth seed that is another son that as Abrahams seed was called in Isaac Ishmael being excluded Gen. 21.12 so Eves seed should be in Seth thaâ— is the elect seed and so he a member of the invisible Church in infancy and yet there 's no inâ—imation that â—e was an infant member of the visible Church from which Ishmael was not excluded In which though I pâ—ace not Seth yet I do not thereby excommunicate Seth or say that he was without the Church in his infancy Mr. B. adds Note also that as God had thus cast out Cain and supplied Abels room by Seth and had given each of them posterity so we find him in a special manner registring the successors of the righteous and putting two titles on these two distinct generations calling some the sons of God and others the daughters of men Gen. 6.2 Supposing that you reject the old conceits that these sons of God were Angels that fell in love with women the current ordinary exposition I think will stand that these were the progeny of Seth and other members of the Church who are called the sons of God and that it was the progeny of Cain and other wicked ones that are called the daughters of men Where note that they are not themselves denominated wicked but the children of men as being a generation separated from the Church from the birth And the other are not themselves affirmed to be truly godly ones but sonâ— of God as being the seed of the Saints not cast out but members of the Church or the sons of those who were devoted to God and so devoâ—ed to him themselves a separated generation belonging to
belongeth to God onely as ignorant people did use to do to the Pharisees If aâ—l natural parents be instruments of God to people the world yet Mr. Bl. will not say they are instruments to produce a holy seed to peoâ—le the Church for theâ— all children and not believers onely should bâ—e fedeâ—ally holy so tâ—at all this is meerly impertinent That all believing parents are instruments of God for an holy seed is said without proof there being no such promise to them and their seed produced nor if there were did it follow they were all federally holy in Mr. â—ls sense But were this gâ—anted yet it is noâ—hing to prove the unbelieving parent to bee Gods instrument to produce a holy seed who is said and not the believer to bee sanctified and that signanter considered as an unbeliever much less every unbelieving wife though bâ—rren who hath a believing husband much less to bee specially designed for that end and therefore the sanctification instrumental which Master Bl. conceives meant 1 Corinth 7.14 is quite besides the Apostles meaning Mr. Bl. goes on thus of me The 2d argument he hath in his Apol. p. 123. where he says that the Apostles proposition understood of federal holiness were most certainly false giving in his reason for many children of both unbelieving parents are federally holy he saith that I answer they are not so at their birth My answer is if afterwards by grace they are changed this is no fruit of their birth of which the question is in this place but the work of the Gospel through grace Mr. T. says This is nothing to the purpose sith the proposition hath not those words in it nor the Apostle the Apostles reason supposeth it cannot be at any time It seems then that the Apostles proposition hath this in it that their children so born cannot bee clean at any time or else Mr. T. his exception is less to purpose who does not see that the Apostle speaks of uncleanness or holiness as as a product of their birth without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen as a mean woman given in marriage to a Senator or Peer she is enobled by her husband otherwise her issue were Plebeians yet so as they are capable of honour by the Princes munificence or their own merit It seems that proposition of Christs That which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh. 3.6 will not hold unless it must for ever continue flesh and no omnipotence of God shall be able to make it otherwise Answ. It is true that it seems to me the Apostles proposition hath this in it that their children born unclean cannot be clean at any time and I grant that the Apostle speaks of uncleâ—nness or holiness as a product of their birth or generation without consideration of any thing which after by providence through the omnipotence and free grace of God might happen and therefore of illegitimation and legitimation by birth and not of federal holiness which is no product of birth and yet that proposition That which is born of the flesh is flesh Joh 3.6 will hold though after the person born after the flesh be made spirit or spiritual there being no contradiction in this that the person born after the flesh should become spiritual in his qualities but it is impossible that that which hath been illegitimate in birth should not be illegitimate in birth iâ— beâ—ng a thing past and therefore cannot by God be made not a thing past or not done for then it should be true that a thing hath been at birth and hath not been been and not been which is a contradiction Mr. Bl saith I farther add And yet it may be certain that the child of two unbelievers may be federally holy at birth whether it bee understood of election inherent holiness or outward holiness if God please to work and declare it I would Mr T would speak whether there were ever any such a thing aâ— the child of two unbelievers at the instant of their birth declared of God to bee of those whom hee took â—o bee federally holy and of the number of his Covenant people let that proposition stand till God by such a miracle confute or contradict it Answ. 1. Though I could not speak there was such a thing yet it is enough for me to shew that and how it might be 2. I doubt not but many a captive woman gotten wâ—th child by an infidel and she her self an infidel hath been delivered in Abrahams house and those children were in Mr. â—ls sense federally holy at the instant of their birth for for they were if males capable of Circumcision on the eighth day according to the law Gen. 17.12 13. and this is to be federally holy according to Mr. Bls. doctrine who makes all to be in the Covenant at their birth who are capable by reason of their birth of the sign of the Covenant He yet saith Mr. T. adds But the issue of them that are not lawfully conjoyned as husband and wife cannot be made legitimate by God because it is contrary to the definition of legitimation which is a state consequent upon birth by the lawfull copulation of lawfull husband and wife This must conclude for his interpretation and against ours because God by his omnipotence can make our unclean ones holy and to make his unclean ones holy is without the verge of omnipotence If we should put case in Mr. T. his manner that God should appear in approbation of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society then there were a legitimation of the issue as he did the marriage of the brothers wife Deut. 25.5 otherwise against the moral law Levit. 18.16 Answ. It concludes for me if it be true which Mr. Bl. disproves not that the holiness is meant 1 Cor. 7.14 which cannot be without the sanctification there spoken of and Mr. Bls. holiness may be without his sanctification and the proposition is true of no other holiness but that which I assign If the definition of legitimation be a state of birth from parents generating in lawfull marriage though God should approve of a mans enjoying a woman out of marriage society there were no legitimation of the issue and yet the marriage Deut. 25.5 were lawfull and the issue legitimate I am sorry Mr. Bl. hath tyred himself and me with so many impertinent words which have shaken nothing of my Fabrick I am glad I am so near an end with him and pass from him to Mr. Sydenham who in the 7th ch of his Exercit. thus speaks The scope of the Apostle here is to hold forth some special Gospel priviledge annexed to the state and he frames his argument by no ordinary medium of the lawfulness of the marriage according to a natural moral or positive rule but a majori from an eminent advantage they had together in the Gospel For 1. the unbelieving husband is
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