of grace and to be elect and to persevere in grace are meant of the same persons according to the Apostles doctrine Rom. 9.7 8. c. and the common doctrine of the Contra-Remonstrants And on the contrary Bertius in his book de Apostasia sanctorum pag. 79. among other absurdities which he reckons as consequent on their opinion that deny Apostasie of Saints puts this as the seventh Baptismum non obsignare certo in omnibus liberis fidelium gratiam Dei quum inter illos quidam sint etiam antecedente decreto Dei ab aeterno absolute reprobati ac proinde dubitandum esse fidelibus de veritate foederis divini Ego sum Deus tuus seminis tui post te And when this was urged by the Author of the Synod of Doâ—t and Arles reduced to the practise Part. 3. Sect. 6. in these words For to every person whom they baptize they apply the promises of the Covenant of grace clean contrary to their own doctrine which saith that they nothing belong to the Reprobates of the world Dr. Twisse answers that however in the judgement of charity they take all Infants brought to be baptized to be elect yet the promises of the Covenant of grace do indeed belong only to the Elâ—ct which he proves at large by shewing that there are promises of the Covenant of grace as of regeneration circumcising the heart writing the Law in their hearts Jer. 31.33 which must needs be absolute For no condition can be assigned of performing these promises but that it will follow That grace is given to wit the grace of faith according to mens workes which is plaine Pelagianisme Whence he concludes Now then who are they on whom God should bestow faith and regeneration but Gods Elect And accordingly Baptisme as it is a Seale and assurance of performing this promise of Justification and salvation unto them that believe so it is a seale and assurance of the promise of circumcising the heart and regeneration only to Gods Elect. And after pag. 192. VVe are ready to maintaine that all who are under the covenant of grace are such as over whom sin shall not have the dominion Rom. 6.14 Besides he that shall heare you preach that the children of believers are in the Covenant of grace and that they that are in the Covenant of grace cannot fall away may be apt to conceive himselfe within the Covenant of grace without repentance and faith and that he shall be saved without obedience and so lay a ground-work for Antinomianisme and consequently Libertinisme And may not on the other side believing Parents when they see their children vicious and ungodly doubt whether they themselves be true believers because they see not their châ—ldren in the Covenant of grace and so while you think to comfort parents about their children you may create great discomfort concerning themselves Lastly if this were true that the Covenant of grace is a birth-right priviledge then the children of believers are children of grace by nature for that which is a birth-right priviledge is a priviledge by nature and if as Mr. Blakâ— saith pag. 6. of his book Christianity is hereditary that as the childe of a Noble man is Noble the childe of a freeman is free the childe of a Turke is a Turke of a Jew a Iew the childe of a Christian is a Christian then Christians are born Christians not made Christians and how are they then children of wrath by nature which whether they may not advantage Pelagians and denyers of Originall sin it concernes those that use such speeches to consider But the Author of the writing entituled Infants baptizing proved lawfull by Scripture mentions other promises besides that Gen. 17.7 to wit Deu. 28.4 Deut. 30.2.6 Isa. 44.3 Isa. 59.21 Exod. 20.6 Psal. 112.2 and such like To all which the answer is plaine if men would conceive it 1. That according to the Apostles own determination Ro. 9 7 8. these promises as they contain such things as accompany salvation must be restrained to the Elect whose children soever they be by naturall generation and this is agreeable to our Saviours applying the promise Isa. 54.13 to them that are given of his Father Iohn 6.45 And thus are we to understand Deut. 30.6 Isa. 44.3 2. That the text Isa. 59.21 is plainly applied to the time of the calling of the Jews Rom. 11.27 and therefore cannot be applied rightly to the posterity of any believers at any time indefinitely 3. Thâ—t the promises Deut. 28.4 Psal. 112.2 are expresly meant of outward blessings and therefore cannot prove a covenant of grace in Christ. 4. That Exod. 20.6 doth plainly include a condition of obedience and it is expresly mentioned Psal. 103.17 18. as included in other promises of like kind which condition God doth not undertake for any children of a believer but the elect nor is Christ surety for any but the elect and therefore till it can be proved that the Election of grace belongs to the children of believers it cannot be proved that the Covenant of grace belongs to them by vertue of these promises I Now return to your Sermon You tell us thus As it is in other kingdomes corporations and families the children of all subjects born in a kingdom are born that Princes subjects where the father is a free-man the childe is not born a slave where any are bought to be servants their children born in their masters house are born his servants Thus it is by the Lawes of almost all nations and thus hath the Lord ordained it shall be in his kingdome and family the children follow the Covenant-condition of their parents if he take a father into his covenant he takes the children in with him if he reject the parents out of the covenant the children are east out with them This passage I might have passed over as containing nothing but dictates Yet I think it necessary to observe 1. That you do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like Civill corporations as if persons were admitted to it by birth whereas in this all is done by free election of grace and according to Gods appointment nor is God tied or doth tie himself in the erecting and propagating his Church to any such carnall respects as descent from men Christianity is no mans birth-right The Apostle knew not that God had so by promise or other ingagement bound himself but he was free as he said to Moses after the promise made to Abraham to have mercy on whom he would Rom. 9.15 Yea to conceive that it is in Gods Church as in other Kingdomes and after the laws of Nations is a seminary of dangerous superstitions and errors Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart hath shewed that hence arose the frame of government by Pâ—triarchs Metropolitans c. And is not this the very reason of Invocation of Saints that I mention not more of the like kind 2. When you say if he take a
did only contain the covenant of Grace in Christ whereas it is apparent ouâ— of the Text that the Covenant was a mixt Covenant consisting of temporall benefits to wit the multiplying of his seed v. 6. the possâ—ssion of Canaan v. 8. the birth of Isaac v. 16. and the spirituall blessings v. 5 7. Yea Cameron thâ—sibus de triplici foedere Dei thesi 78. saith That circumcision did primarily separate Abrahams seed from other Nations sealed the earthly promise it signified sanctification secondarily And indeed this is so plainly delivered in the Scripture that the Psalmist cals the promise of Canaaâ— the covenant made with Abraham Ps. 105.8 9 10 11. He hath remembred his Covenant for ever the word which he commanded to a thousand generations which Covenant he made with Abraham and his Oath unto Isaac and confirmed the same to Jacob for a Law and to Israel for an everlasting covenant Saying unto thee will I give the Land of Canaan the lot of your inheritance If you should say that these promises were types of spirituâ—ll and heavenly things the reply is that though it be true yet the things promised were but carnall and earthly as the Sacrifices were but carnall things though shadowes of spirituall 2. When you say thus The manner of administration of this Covenant was at first by types and shadowes and sacrifices c. It had been convenient to have named Circumcision that it might not be conceived to belong to the substance of the Covenant But of this there may be more occasion to speak at pag. 35. of your Sermon 3. Whereas pag. 14. you place among the third sort of Abrahams seed Proselytes that were selfe-justitiaries carnall and formall professors it behoved you to shew where in Scripture they are called Abrahams seed which I think you cannot Yea the truth is you herein joyn with Arminius who in his Analysis of the 9. to the Romans makes this as the ground of his wresting that Scripture that there is a seed of Abraham mentioned Romans 4.9 10. and Galat. 3. 4. cap. Qui per opera legis justitiam salutem consequuntur Who follow after righteousnesse and salvation by the works of the Law To whom Baine on Eph. 1.5 p. 139. answers Beside though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken But it is yet stranger to me that which Mr. Blake hath pag. 9. where he saith That there yet remaines in the bosome of the Church a distinction of the seed of Abraham borne after the flesh and after the spirit And that now by vertue of being born after the flesh some have a Church-interest And applies that of Gal. 4 29. Even so it is now to children born of believing parents after the flesh as having there by title to Church-interest Which passages are very grosse though he makes this the medium of his fourth Argument For first whereas the Apostle by being born after the flesh means not infants born of believing parents but those that are under the covenant of Mount Sinai that is who sought righteousnesse by the law and not by faith Mr. Blake means by being born after the flesh birth by naturall generation of infants born of Christian parents 2. Whereas he saith that such are in the bosome of the Church the Apostle saith they persecute the Church and are cast out 3. Whereas â—e makes such Abrahams seed he therein joyns with Arminius against the truâ—h and against the Apostle for though the Apostle makes Ismael to be the son of Abraham and speaks of him as born after the flesh whom he typically makes to represent legall justitiaries yet doth he not call Abrahams seed simply such justitiaries 4. Whereas the covenant of grace is made the reason of baptizing infants by alleâ—ging this place for baptizing of infants To be born of Hagar that is to be in the covenant of works should give a child interest into the Church of Christ. For my part I can see no other consequence than this of that cloudy argument The rest of your explication of the first Conclusion I let passe without any further animadversions as being unwilling sectare minutias to insist on small things or to stand upon matters of expression where I think you mean right and your words are likely to be so taken YOur second Conclusion is this Ever-since God gathered a distinct number out of the world to be his Kingdom City household in opposition to the rest of the world which is the kingdom city and houshold of Sathan He would have the Infants of all who are taken into Covenant with him to be accounted his to belong to him to his Church and family and not to the Devils This Conclusion you expresse so ambiguously that it is a Cothurnus a buskin that may be put on either legge right or left which should not have been in the main Proposition upon which the whole frame of your Argument hangs You say The Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his but you tell us not in what sense this is to be understood For whereas persons may be said to be accounted his either before God or in facie Ecclesiae visibilis in the face of the visible Church 1. Before God either in respect of his election from eternity or his promise of grace in Christ congruous to it Or of their present estate of inbeing in Christ or the future estate they shall have 2. In facie Ecclesiae visibilis persons may be said to be accounted God's either as born among his people and so potentially members of the Church as being in a way to be in time actuall members of the Church of Christ or who already enquire after God and professe Christ though they do not well understand the doctrine of Christian Religion such as the Catechumeni of old were or they are to be accounted his in respect of actuall participation of Baptisme and the Lords supper 3. The accounting of them to be God's may be either an act of science or faith or opinion and that grounded on a rule of charity of prudence or probable hope for the future You do not declare distinctly in which of these senses or respects the Infants of all who are taken into covenant with God are to be accounted his so that I am almost at a stand what to deny or grant It cannot be denied but God would have the infants of believers in some sort to be accounted his to belong to him his Church and family and not to the Devils which expression I fear you use in this and other places ad faciendum populum to please the peoplâ— It is true in facie Ecclesiae visibilis the infants of believers are to be accounted Gods to belong to his family and church and not to the Devils as being in a neer possibility of
foedus dei inituÌ„ cum Abrahamo non omnes Abrahae posteros fimbria sua comprehendere sic simpliciter instituenduÌ„ esse censemus Esavus Jacobus erant ex posteris Abrahae at horuÌ„ utâ—uÌ„que non coÌ„plexus est Deus foedere suo cum Abrahamo inito ergo non omnes posteros Abrahami Probatur autem Deum non complexuÌ„ fuisse utruÌ„que foedere gratiae quiae non complexus est EsavuÌ„ majoreÌ„ sed JacobuÌ„ minoreÌ„ Bain on Eph. 1.5 p. 138. He answereth the assumption of the latter Syllogism by distinguishing of Israel children denying that al Israelites are that Israel to which Gods word belongeth or that all Abrahams seed are those children whoÌ„ God adopted to himselfe v. 7. but such only who were like Isaac first begotten by a word of promise and partakers of the heavenly calling The reason is to be conceived in this manner the rejecting of such who are not the true Israel nor belong not to the number of Gods adopted children cannot shake Gods word spoken to Israel and Abrahams seed but many of the Israelites and Abrahams seed aâ—e such to whom the word of God belonged not ergo the word of God is firm though they be rejected Pag. 139. A childe of the flâ—sh being such a one who descendeth from Abraham according to the flesh For it is most plaine that these did make them thinke thâ—mselves within the compâ—sse of the word because thâ—y were Israelites and the seed of Abraham in regard of bodily generation propagated from him and Arminius doth decline that in objecting and answering which this discourse consisteth Beside that though the sons of the flesh may signifie such who carnally not spiritually conceive of the Law yet the seed of Abraham without any adjoyned is never so taken The assumption which is to be proved is this That many of Abrahams seed are such to whom the word belongeth not The word which belonged not to Ishmael and Esau but to Isaac and Jacob only and such as were like to them that word belonged not to many of those who are the seed of Abraham and Israelites But the word shewing Gods love choice adoption blessing of Israel and Abrahams seed belonged not to Esau Ishmael and such as they were but to Isaac and Jacob. Amesius Animadv in Remonstr citat scripta Synod de Praeâ—estin cap. 8. § 6. thus expresseth the Apostles scope Multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat ut Ismael Ismaelitae si autem multi sunt ex semine Abrahami ad quos verbum promissionis non spectat tum rejectio multorum Judaeorum qui sunt ex semine Abrahami non irritum facit verbum promissionis Out of all which I gather if the naturall posterity of Abraham were not within the Covenant of grace by vertue of that promise Gen. 17.7 then much lesse are our naturall posterity but the former is true Rom. 9.6 7 8 9 10 11 12. therefore the latter is true and the contrary delivered in that which I conceive your â—ssertion false A second reason is this The Apostles Exposition of the promise shews us best what is the meaning of it but the Apostle when he expounds the promise of God to Abraham I will be thy God and the God of thy seed as it was a promise of saving grace to wit justification and life expounds it as belonging to Abraham not as a naturall Father but as Father of the faithfull whether of the Jews or the Gentiles and his seed not his naturall but his spiriâ—uall seed Christ and believers Rom. 4.11 12 13 14 15 16 17. Gal. 3.7.16.29 Whence George Downham of Justification lib. 6. cap. 6. § 4. speakes thus The other promises concerning his seed are two The former concerning the multiplication of his seed that he should be a father of a multitude of Nations namely in Christ and that he would be a God to him and his seed he doth not say to seeds as of many but as of one to thy seed which is Christ Gal. 3.16 that is Christ mysticall 1 Cor. 12.12 Containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations both Jews and Gentiles This promise therefore implyeth the former that in Christ the promised seed Abraham himselfe and his seed that is the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed And in confirmation of this promise he was called Abraham because he was to be a Father of many Nations that is of the faithfull of all Nations for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed Rom. 9.7.8 Gal. 3.7.29 Thus he opens the Apostles meaning and thus frequently do Protestant Divines in their writings Now if only believers are in that promise as it was a promise of saving grace then it is not made to the naturall posterity as such of any believer much lesse of us Gentiles My third reason is this The Covenant of grace is the Gospel and so you call it pag. 37. when you say This is a part of the Gospel preached unto Abraham Now the Gospel preached to Abraham the Apostle thus expresseth Gal. 3.8 9. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospel unto Abraham saying in thee shall all Nations be blessed so then they which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham and ver 11. But that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by Faith it is Hab. 2.4 By his faith And generally when Divines distinguish of the Covenant of grace and of workes they say the condition of the Covenant of grace is faith They then that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers but also to their naturall children whether believing or not these adde to the Gospel and the Apostle saith of such Gal. 1.8 9. Let him be accursed Fourthly I thus argue If God have made a Covenant of grace in Christ not only to believers but also to their seed or naturall children then it is either conditionally or absolutely if conditionally the condition is either of works and then grace should be of works conâ—rary to the Apostle Rom. 11.8 or of Faith and then the sense is God hath promised grace to bâ—lievers and to their seed if believers that is to believers and believers which is nugatory If this Covenant of grace to believers seed be absolute then either God keeps it or not if 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 bee Apostasie of persons in the Covenant of grace by which the Arguments brought by Mr. Prynne in his Perpetuity and others for perseverance in grace are evacuated and Bertius his Hymenaeus desertor justified The truth is generally to be in the Covenant
because then used so 1 Cor. 15.14.29 Rom. 11.6 to prove that which went before 2. That here the argument is ab absurdo from an absurditie which would follow if the thing to be proved were not granted and the speech must needs be Elliptick and somwhat is to be repeated to make the speech full as when it is said Rom. 11.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If by grace it is no more of workes else grace were no more grace To make the sense full you must adde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because if of works So here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For if the unbelieving husband hath not been sanctifiâ—d to the wife your children c. So that this is the argument of the Apostle entire If the unbelieving husband were not sanctified by the wife then were your children unclean but they are not unclean but holy Ergo the unbelieving husband is sanctified to the wife Now the Major of this Syllogism is a conditional and the sâ—quâ—l of it were not true if this proposition were not true All the children of those Parents whereof the one is not sanctâ—fied to the other are unclean Now if the sanctification be here meant of Matrimonial sanctificatioÌ„ as I have proved it must and the uncleannesse be meant of federall uncleannesse so as to exclude them out of the covenant whether of Saving-graces or Church-priviledges the proposition were most false sith that children of parents whereof one was not Matrimonially sanctified to the other but came together unchastly as Pharez and Zarah of Iudah and Tamar Iepthe of Gilead and many others were within the Covenant of Saving graces and Church priviledges and therefore to make the Proposition true without which the Apostle speakes that which is false it must be understood of uncleannesse by bâ—stardy for it is true of no other uncleannesse that all children of those parents whereof the one is not sanctified to the other are uncleane And that this is the force of the Apostles reasoning Chamier saw Panstr Cathol tom 4. lib. 5. c. 10. § 67. when arguing against the conceit ascribed to Augustine concerning Ceremoniall holinesse he saith thus De ceremoniali illa sanctitate quid dicam venit in mentem Augustino sed Deus bone quam aliena profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur Euge. Dixit Apostolus si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in vxore fideli futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri aut falsum dixit Apostolus Quid ergo Omnesne nati ex ijs parentibus quorum alter non santificatur in altero geniti sunt in menstruis Nunquamne Infideles utuntur uxoribus nisi menstruatis ita oportet sane aut hanc ridiculam esse interpretationem I may apply the same words to Chamier his interpretation of foederall sanctity De faederali illa sanctitate quid dicam venit in mentem Chamiero Calvino c. Sed Deus bone quam aliena profecto quaedam sunt tam absurda ut refutari non mereantur Euge. Dixit Apostolus si non sanctificetur maritus infidelis in uxore futurum ut filij inde nati sint impuri ergo omnes sic nati sunt impuri aut falsum dixit Apâ—stolus quid ergo Omnesno nati ex ijs parentibus quoruÌ„ alter non sanctificatur in altero sunt extra foedus gratiae NunquaÌ„ne parentes infideles aut fornicantes gignunt liberos intra foedus gratiae futuros ita oportet sane aut ridiculam hanâ— esse interpretationem As for the other words but now are they holy the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but now is not an adverbe of time here as Beza rightly but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 else were so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 buâ— now is a particle of reasoning used in the assumption of arguments which shews it is the assumption of the Apostles argument and therefore it must be understood of holinesse opposiâ—e to the uncleannesse mentioned but that being no other then bastardy the holinesse can be meant of no other then legitimation Nor is this any whit an unlikely sense sith bastards were reckoned among uncleane persons Deut. 23.2 and the Apostles expression may be allusive to the Iewish speaking or estimation And why it should be thought strange that holy should signifie legitimate I know not when as Mal. 2.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a seed of God rendred by your selfe page 19. a holy seed is all one with a legitimate seed as Calvin rightly expounds it and the words must be understood for they speak of the first institution of marriage which was not to seek a seed of God distinct from the wicked for it is spoken of the generall end of all marriages but a lawfull seed whereto I may adde that marriage hath had the reputation of a holy estate as the Liturgie calls it and as that excellent booke intituled The union of Christ and the Church in a shadow by R. C. provâ—s As for Mr. Blakes quaere pag. 11. whether we will give the like interpretation of Gal. 2.15 which is saith he every way parallel and answers in either of the branches Doth the Apostle here meane we that are by birth legitimate and not bastards of the Gentiles I may apply to him the words of him in the Poet. Cernimus an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt Doe we see or doe they that love faine dreames to themselves for I cannot tell how to interpret this passage that 1 Cor 7 14. and Gal. 2.15 are very way parallel and the one to be interpreted by the other any otherwise then as a conceit in a dream like as when the fancy from gold and a mountaine compounds a golden mountain And for his argument which he drawes from the text on which his discourse is builded in that the Apostle contra distinguisheth Jews by nature and sinners of the Gentiles which the phrase shews the Apostle useth after the vulgar manner for otherwise Jewes are by nature sinners as well as the Gentiles to prove that the Infants of believers are in the Covenant of grace and have a birth-priviledge for baptisme it is a riddle to mee The meaning of the words is plainly this we are born Jews and not Gentâ—les who are reputed sinnerâ— yet we know that a man is not justified by the works of the law to observe which by birth we were tied and therfore Peter did ill to compel the Gentiles to Judaize to keep the law of Moses thereby dissembling the lâ—bertie they had in Châ—â—st and bringing them into bondage so that it is plaine he mentions Jewes by nature to shew their obligation to the law by their birth and he calls the Gentiles sinners according to the common expression of them as not observing the law of the Jews and therâ—fore when Mr. Blake saith That he contendâ— to have the seed of believing Parents under the Gospel to
bring is Heb. 8.6 where our covenant is said to be established upon better promises If this Scripture serve to your purpose then the covenant of Grace now hath better promises then the covenant of Grace the Jews had but this I know you will deny who hold that the covenant of Grace is the same both to Jews and Gentiles But that you may see how confusedly you thrust things together in this place I pray you consider what covenant it is of which the Author to the Hebrewes speaks there that it had not so good promises Is it not expresly said to be that which God made when he took the Israelites by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt which covenant they brake vers 9. Now although Dr. Crisp vol. 2. Serm. 2. calls the covenant of Aarons Priestood a covenant of Grace though of lesse grace yet you say thus pag. 10. and four hundred and thirty yeers after the Law was added with great terror upon Mount Sinai not as a part of this covenant and after plainly in that giving of the Law there was something of the covenant of works made with Adam in Paradise c. So that you do grant there was a rehearsall of the covenant of works though you do make it also to have something of the administration of the covenant of Grace The truth is the Scripture plainly makes it the covenant of works Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.10.12 Gal. 4.24 Heb. 12.18 though I deny not that which you say that it was intended as a preparative and means to fit them for Christ and therefore may not unfitly be called foedus subserviens a subservient covenant as Cameron in his Theses de triplici foedâ—re But this being so to what purpose do you tell us that our covenant is established upon better promises as if the Jewes covenant were no better then that on Mount Sinai or as if the comparison concerning priviledges were between the covenant of Grace now and the covenant of Works then whereas the question is as you say page 31. which are branches of the covenant of Grace and a little after but were no part of the covenant of Grace which God made to Abraham and his seed Now the covenant of Grace is that made with Abraham Gal. 3.15 c. as your self alledge pag. 10. and you say there that covenant was for substance alwayes the same and the substance as you recite it is the promises and the condition so that out of your own words it is clear that we have no better promises in the covenant of Grace now then they had then only the administration of the covenant of grace is now better then it was to them then it was mixt with other particular promises which because they are not coÌ„mon to al believers in the covenant of grace therfore belong not to the covenant of Grace in Christ purely taken such as the promise of deliverance from Egypt setling in Canaan c. For though it is true that godlinesse hath the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come yet the promise of the life that now is is not a particular promise of possession of such or such a land to us or our seed or the coming of Christ out of our posteritie as it was then but only a generall promise of Gods providing for his children with persecution Mark 10.30 Then it was with expectation of Christ to come now with assurance of Christ already come in the flesh and accomplishing what was foretold of him then Christ was shadowed in darke types now wee see him unveiled in a plaine history So that though it be true that the priviledges of believers are now many wayes inlarged in some respects yet simply the Covenant of Grace is not inlarged in respect of the substance of it the promises of Grace and the condition they are still belonging to the Elect and believers and to no other The next Scripture you thus express The glory of theirs had no glory in respect of ours for this you quote 2 Cor. 3.10 But this passage is plainly meant of the Covenant at Mount Sinai which is called the letter ver 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 ver 7. The ministration of condemnation ver 9. Which I suppose you doe not understand of the Covenant of Grace and therefore it is impertinently alledged Your next is they were under the bondage of Infants under age in comparison of our freedome For this you alledge Gal. 4.1 c. But this is said of the administration in types and shadows and ceremonies called the rudiments of the world ver 3. Concerning which it is confessed our priviledges are enlarged but they are not branches of the Covenant of Grace which every man who is in Covenant with God may expect from God by vertue of the Covenant You goe on We as well as they are called a holy Nation a peculiar people a chosen Generation separated to him from all other people It is granted we believers are such a holy Nation c. doth it therefore follow that the priviledges of beleevers under this last and best administration of the Covenant of Grace are many wayes enlarged You allude to that place 1 Pet. 2.9 and Mr Blake pag. 8. urgeth this text to prove a birthright priviledge of Christians equall to the Nations of the Jewes But it is answered this passage is meant of the invisible Church the living lively members of Christ. To which he saith The contrary to this in the Text is cleare First by looking back to the words that there precede It is meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Christ. I have looked backe and finde no such thing there It is true there is mention of some who did reject Christ ver 7 8. But that when Peter sayes yee are a chosen Generation a royall Priesthood c. it should be meant of any other then true believers who alone can offer spirituall sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ is an interpretation which I disclaime much more that it should be meant of all those who do not professedly with the unbelieving Jewes reject Jesus Christ. For then it may be said not onely of Simon Magus and other hypocrites but also of all the salvages in the world that never heard of Christ that they are a chosen Generation a royall Priesâ—hood an holy Nation a peculiar people that they should shew forth the praise of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvailous light Mr Blake addes Which will yet more fully appeare by comparing the words of S t Paul Rom. 9.32 33. I desire Mr Blake to revise his Treatise and to examine whether this and many other passages answer to Mr Vines
be given why these Infants did belong to Gods Kingdome because they were such as Christ would blesse and then all that you can gather from hence will be that of the Infants of Believers whom Christ blesseth is the Kingdome of heaven But this will never prove your Assumption except you can prove that Christ blesseth all the Infants of Believers Lastly Christs action in this businesse is proper to him as the great Prophet of the Church and extraordinary and therefore yeelds no ground for an ordinary rule of baptizing by the publique Ministery And if an ordinary rule should be made in imitation of it it would serve better for the proving the Sacrament of confirmation which Art 25. of the Church of England puts among things grown from a corrupt following the Apostles then Baptisme And in all probability if Christ would have this accident to be a rule or precedent for bringing Infants to him by a visible signe in the new Testament as Mr. Thomâ—s Goodwin at Bow dictated he would have appointed his Apostles to have baptized these Infants as a samplar For which reason it seems to me that this example rather shews Christ would not have Infants baptized then that he intended to make this accident a precedent for paedobaptisme But you will prove your Minor by reasons and thus you reason Beside what one thing can be named belonging to the initiation and being of a Christian whereof Baptisme is a seal which Infants are not capable of as well as grown men they 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 seâ—led in the Sacrament of Baptisme I may apply to you the words of Horace Amphora coepit institui currente rota curâ—â—recus exit A barrell began to be made why the wheel running doth a pitcher come forth The thing you should prove is that all the Infants of Believers are actually partakers of the inward grace of Baptisme but in stead of this you prove they are capable of it they may have it but doth it therefore follow that they actually have it It was once an Axiome in the Schools a posse ad esse non valet argumentum from it may be â—o it is an Argument holds not and I think it is so still Besides must children be baptized because they are capable of Grace Then may all children be baptized for they are all capable of the inward Grace of Baptisme But you have yet something more to say And it is further considerable that in the working of that inward grace of which Baptisme is the signe and seal all who partake of that grace are but meer patients and contribute no more to it then a childâ— doth to its own begetting and therefore Infants as fit subjects to have it wrought in them as grown men and the most grown men are in no more fitnesse to receive this grace when it is given them in respect either of any faith or repentance which they yet have then a very little childe it being the primary intention of the covenant of Grace in its first work to shew what free grace can and will do to miserable nothing to cut miserable man off from the wild Olive and graffe him into the true Olive to take away the heart of stone â—o create in them a heart of flesh to forgive their iniquities to love them freely what doth the most grown men in any of these more then an Infant may do being only passive in them all and of this first grace is the Sacrament of Baptisme properly a seal That which you say it is true is further considerable but to what purpose it is here brought in I cannot readily divine whether it be for a proof of the Minor of your Syllogisme or that which you said immediatly before that Infants are capable of the inward grace of Baptisme or whether you would make a further Argument for Infant-baptisme thus Baptisme is to be given to those that are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because Baptisme seals properly the first grace But Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men and the proof of this seems to be because all who partake of that grace are but meer patients c. Therefore Infants are to be baptized as well as grown men If this be your Argument the Major is to be denyed For a person is not to be baptized because he may have grace but because he hath it And for the reason that Baptisme seals properly the first grace it is obscure what you mean by the first grace is not cleare If the free favour of God mentioned before when you say to love them freely this indeed is the first grace simply Gods eternall love and election and I deny not but Baptisme seals it in some sense properly and so doth the Lords Supper as properly if you mean by the first grace the covenant of Grace which is the first transient act of grace that also is sealed properly in Baptisme and as properly in the Lords Supper if you mean the first grace in execution it is uncertain which you put first justification or regeneration or as some adoption And then which is the second grace is uncertain whether after-sanctification cooperating concomitant subsequent grace sustentation against temptations remission of sins hearing prayers or eternall glory Now I do not well understand in what sense or why Baptisme seals properly rather the first grace then the second sith according to your doctrine it is a seal of the covenant of grace and therefore of all the promises in it Nor can I tell why it should be said that Baptisme seals the first grace properly rather then the Lords Supper I confesse in exactnesse of speech Baptisme seals no grace first or second properly taking it for propriety of speech but improperly because metaphorically as sealing is taken for assuring And if properly notes propriety of right or title or possession in opposition to anothers or that which is alien I see not how Baptisme doth seal that is assure the first grace in respect of the propriety of right more then the second or more then the Lords Supper And therefore your speech seems to me very ambiguous And for the Minor as I conceive you frame it that Infants are capable of the first grace as well as grown men it is true and so they are of the second or at least some of them but both by extraordinary working As for receiving grace by ordinary means they are not capable of one or other And for the speeches which you heap together though I grant that in the first conversion in the sense that some learned men understand it we are meerly passive yet I doubt whether Dr. Twisse and such as have most acutely handled the controversie about the irresistibility of grace in the
with some difference Baptisme properly seales the entrance into it the Lords Supper properly the growth nourishment and augmentation of it Baptisme for our birth the Lords Supper for our food Now infants may be borne againe while they are infants have their originall sin pardoned be united to Christ have his image stampt upon them but concerning the exercise of these graces and the augmentation of them in infants while they are infants the Scripture is altogether silent You spake somewhat to like purpose before which I examined part 3. sect 15. To me it is yet as a paradoxe that Baptisme seales properly the entrance into the Covenant and the Lords Supper the growth nourishment and augmentation of it If you make the entrance at remission of sins justification or mortification the Lords Supper that seales Christs death seales the entrance into the Covenant Mat. 26.28 And for Baptisme it seales dying with Christ and rising with Christ Rom. 6.3 4 5. Gal. 3.27 Col. 2.12 1 Pet. 3.21 and therefore not onely the first worke of conversion but also after-growth and exercise of holinesse And the Lords Supper signifies the same receiving the Spirit which Baptisme doth 1 Cor. 12.13 And according â—o the doctrine of Protestants Baptisme seales as well the pardon of other sins as of originall sin And so Peter Acts 2.38 and Ananias Act. 22.16 And therefore this difference you put is a difference which the Scripture makes not that I say nothing of your strange phraseology of the growth nourishment and augmentation of the Covenant But you say And what is said concerning the infants of the Jewes eating the Passeover to which our Sacrament of the Lords Supper doth succeed there is no such thing mentioned in the Book of God It is said indeed that the severall families were to eate their Lambe if the houshold were not too little for it and that when their children should aske them what that service meant they should instruct them about the meaning of it but no word injoyning nor any example witnessing thaâ— their little children did eate of it The Commands were that all the males should thrice a yeare appeare before the Lord one of which was the Passeover Exod. 23.17 Exod. 34.23 Deut. 16.16 And at that time there was no other food to be eaten but the unleavened bread and the paschall Supper Therefore those males that could eate though not come to yeares of discretion fit to receive the Lords Supper yet were to eate the Passeover Ainsworth notes on Exod. 12.26 So both the outward rite and the meaning of it was to be taught to their children Touching whom the Jewes hold from the Law in Exod. 23.14.17 Deut. 16.14.16 that every child that could hold his Father by the hand and goe up from Jerusalem gates to the mountaine of the Temple his Father was bound to cause him to goe up and appeare before God with him to the end he might catechize him in the Commandements And who sow as bound to appeare was bound to keep the feast Maimâ—ny in Hagigah Chap. 2. sect 3 4. Also they say A childe that is able to eate a marsell of bread they catechize him in the Commandements and give him to eate so much as an Olive of the unleavened bread Maimony Treatise of leaven and unleavened bread c. 6. sect 10. But you say If they say as some of them doe that those little ones who were able to enquire concerning the meaning of that service and capable to receive instruction about it did eate of the Passeover with their parents I answer although the Scripture speaks nothing of their eating yet if that be granted it is no prejudice to us because the Gospel prohibites not such young ones from the Lords Supper who are able to examine themselves and discerne the Lords body True but children that were to appeare at the Passeover and to partake of it were many of them such as might be instructed concerning the meaning of that service and yet too young to examine themselves or to discerne the Lords body so that if the Lords Supper succeed the Passeover and a rule may be drawne from the Passeover to the Lords Supper children unable to examine themselves may be admitted to the Lords Supper THe rest of your Sermon is application which being not argumentative I shall let it passe Onely whereas you charge Anabaptists with a rash and bloudy sentence condemning infants as out of the state of grace condemning all the infants of the whole Church of Christ as having nothing to doe with the Covenant of grace and then tragically aggravate this thing as parallel or rather exceeding the cruelty of Herod and Hazael in slaying and dashing the infants of Israel against the wall till you produce some testimonies of those you call Anabaptists so determining I shall take it to be but a false accusation and a fruit of passion not of holy zeale For the thing it selfe I have shewed part 2. sect 10. that it doth not follow on the doctrine of Antipaedobaptisme and I conceive that if to be in the Covenant of grace be rightly explained to wit so as to signifie the having of the promise of justification and salvation by Christ Jesus besides which I know not any other Evangelicall Covenant of grace your selfe will be found to exclude them from the covenant of grace as much as they As they dare not say that this or that particular infant of a believer is in the covenant of grace that is certainly elected justified and to be saved so neither dare you Your owne words are pag. 48. Charitie being not tyed to conclude certainly of any of them because they ought to know that all are not Israel who are of Israel and that many are called but few are chosen If you should you would gainsay the Apostle Rom. 9.6 7 8. And on the other side as you will not say they are damned so neither will they I am perswaded but suspending any sentence concerning this or that in particular leave them to God who is the soveraigne Lord both of them and us THus have I at last in the middest of many wants distractions discouragements and temptations with the assistence of God who hath never failed me to him be the praise examined your Sermon and thereby shewed that it doth not satisfie and how little reason you had to say in your Epistle I am assured that it is Gods truth which I have preached and which he will blesse Notwithstanding which confidence I presume you will see cause to consider more exactly of this matter upon the reading of this answer I dare not thinke any otherwise of you then as of one who loves and seekes the truth Nor doe I know any reason why you should conceive that I have taken this paines for any ends crosse to the finding of truth My reall intention in this worke is to discover truth and to doe what is meete for mee in my calling towards