Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3
To the eight objection, That was in the flesh, this in the heart, Mr. C. speaks thus. Answ. was that only in their flesh? was not the word of Covenant as well in their heart as Moses judging Ecclesiastically avoweth of Israel Deut. 29.10, 11. &c with 30.11, 12, 13, 14. so Isai. 51.7. God's covenant now is to write his Law in our hearts Heb. 8. but is not all that included in this, I will be your God? whence all is enclosed up in that phrase ibid. or was not the first made to the Jews after their return from Captivity more expressly, Ier. 3 • ▪ as before more implicitly Gen. 17.
Reply. The objection I concieve (though I do not well know whose it is) is this, that the covenant at mount Sinai with the Jewish nation, or the covenant with Abraham. Gen. 17. were not the same with the covenant, for that was in the flesh in circumcision, or with the fleshly Jew in that at mount Sinai, this is the heart by writing God's Law there and comprehends only them in whose hearts God's Laws are written. And indeed this difference the Apostle makes between the Covenant of the Law and the Go • pel, the one was of the letter, the other of the spirit 2 Cor. 3.6. the promise of the spirit is said to be by faith Gal. 3.14. and in the new covenant this is made the promise different from what was in the first which was faulty for want of it Heb. 8.10. • that God would write his laws in their hearts. now what Mr. C. speaks seems to me no whit to infring this. For though it is true, the word of Covenant was in their hearts, yet it is true, if meant of sanctifying implantation, only of the elect, not all Abraham's natural seed, or the whole body of Israel. How Moses is said to judge Ecclesiastically I understand not. Deut. 29.10, 11. &c. with 30.11, 12, 13, 14. do not prove that Moses avowed of every Isralite that the word of covenant was in their heart. In some places doubtless the promise [I will be your God] includs also the writing of God's Laws in our hearts, nor will I deny it included in the promise Gen. 17.7. But I do then not understand it of every Israelite in that sense: for if so then I must make God's word fall, since he doth not perform it to all. And for that which Mr. C. seems to hold, that they had the promise dispensed unto them with execution of the covenant, it is in my apprehension to charge God with falsehood. if any say I wrong Mr. C. let him construe this passage otherwise if he can [ yea but God did not actually write such holy dispositions in them: suppose he did not: that is the execution of the covenant, as for the very • erith or Covenant itself, it is the promise whereof dispensed to them, and this they had both Gen. 17. and Deut. 30.6. To circumcise the heart to love God is▪ to imprint gracious dispositions; to promise the same to them is a Covenant to imprint it and so he did covenant with them and theirs ibid ] In which words he seems plainly to make God promise to imprint in some the gracious disposions he doth not actually imprint, which is to make God not keep his word; nor is the matter mended by asking, is not God's Covenant now also sacramentally on our bodies too, and in many no further ? For I grant many are baptized, who are not regenerate, yet I do not believe God's Covenant of grace is to any such, or as Mr. C. speaks God's Covenant to write his Laws in their hearts is to any such. Nor do I think that either Ierem. 31·33. or Deut. 30.6. God promiseth to all Israelites to write holy dispositions in their hearts, but only to the elect; nor to these in his covenant at mount Sinai, though he made these promises to some of the natural seed of Israel. neither Rom. 11. from 16. to 24. nor Gen. 4.15, 16. Compared with Gen. 6.1, 2. nor Gen. 17.18.19, 20, 21. compared with Gen. 21.9, 10, 11, 12. and Gal. 4. nor Heb. 12▪15, 16.17. prove that either Cain or Ishmael or Esau were ever in the Covenant of Evangelical grace, nor is there any text that proves that he new covenant is entailed to natural generations of the most Godly men. Mr. C. in answer to the tenth objection saith thus. But it's false to say the Commandment gave right to Covenant Interest▪ since Covenant right was first promised and declared to be the ground of that commanded service of the init • atory seal Gen. 17 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. &c. Thou shalt therefore keep my Covenant. He doth not say you must be or are circumcised, and therefare I will be your God: But I will be a God to thee and thy seed, therefore thou and they shall be circumcised; the nature of a seal supposeth a Covenant to be sealed.
To which I reply, I confess it were ridiculous for any to say the commandment gave right to covenant-interest, or covenant-right. For what is covenant-interest, but interest in the covenant, and covenant-right, but right from the covenant? But setting aside Mr C. his inept phrasifyings, (which I count to be Paedobaptists-gibberish) it is not false, but manifest truth, that it is the command of God only that gave title to persons to be circumcised, and is the Rule to know who are to be circumcised and who not, as I have often proved and shown to be in effect confessed by Mr M. As for Mr. C. his inference from [ thou therefore, Gen, 17.9.] it is answered often before in the first part of this Review, Sect. 5. and elsewhere, that neither is the reading certain [ thou therefore ] nor doth the inference arise merely from the promise, v. 7. nor is the inference at all of a right to circumcision, but of a duty, nor is this duty urged from each circumcised persons interest in the covenant but God's making it with Abraham. Nor is it true, That the nature of a Seal supposeth a covenant to be sealed, since other things are to be sealed, as Letters, Books, Stones, Men, Fountains, &c. besides covenants, Abraham's circumcision, Rom. 4.11. was a seal not of a covenant of some things to be done, but of the righteousness of faith which he had yet being uncircumcised, & if it were true, yet is it as little to the purpose, since there may be a covenant sealed to a person that hath no interest in the promise, as when ones name is used only as a Trustee for others. And for what is said, That the commandment required only a male of eight days old to be circumcised, (which Mr. C. seems to conceive false) meaning not before the eighth day, is so plain by reading the chapter, that I should make question of his wit or his forehead that should deny it. And the reason thus expressed is as frivolous, The promise heing made indefinitely to the seed whether male or female, and not to the eighth day old seed, but to the seed albeit but a day old. For though the promise be to the child of one day old, yet the command is not to him, nor is he to be circumcised, and therefore the seal follows not the covenant, but the command even where the promise goes before. What he adds, Else what had become of them if they had died then, in respect of the ordinary covenant means of their good, Rom. 9.6: Methinks Mr. C. might have as easily answered himself as he would do a Papist pleading this very plea for the necessity of infants baptism to salvation, or about the case of famales, or still-born infants. Surely he would say, God supplies that without means, which he bestows on others by ordinary means, and so infants of a day old may speed well without circumcision. To what purpose Rom. 9.6. comes in here I know not: This and some other passages seem to be the inconsiderate speeches of a man dreaming.
To the objection, with the Jews, the Church and State were the same, but not so now. Mr. C. thus writes. Answ. God never confounded Church and Civil State either then or now. Who dare make God the author of confusion which is the God of order? He then kept them several, paling in the Civil State with the Judicials, with which the Church as such dealt not, but as Civil cases came under a Church consideration. She had her Ceremonials and Morals to regulate her Kings and Princes, Priests Levites, and Elders had their proper work, and word, only in their own Sphears. The Elders of the Assemblies knew and acted in their places Ecclesiastically without interruption from Civil officers, or intruding upon Civil Officers as such, as Josh. 9. & 16.1, 2, Acts 14. Luke 4. The matters of the King and of the Lord were carefully bounded and sundered, 2 Chron. 17.11.
Answ. According to the constitution of the Jewish people by God, the Church was not one body and the State another, but all the same persons were of the Church, who were members of the Common-wealth, he that had the right of a Jew, had the right of a Church-member, nor were any taken in or cast out of the one, but withal he was taken in or cast out of the other. Nor hereby is God made the Author of confusion, but good order was settled & kept in this way of coincidency of State Civil and Ecclesiastical. Nor is it true that God kept the Church and Civil State several, or paled in the Civil State with Judicials, by which it was divided from the Church. In the Church the Priest dealt as well in judicials as in ceremonials, the Priest and the Levite as well as the Judge gave sentence in matters of blood and plea, as well as between stroke and stroke, Deut. 17.8, 9. Eli, Samuel, Jehoiadah judged Israel, managed State-affairs as well as Temple service. Nor do I know any such Judicials, but that they did belong to the Church or Priests (who were Judges) as well as to the Civil State, that is, the Princes. As there were ceremonials and morals to regulate Kings and Princes, so there were also laws to regulate the Priests. But nowhere do we read of any Court kept by the Church, or Officers of the Church, that is, Priests and Levites, wherein to censure Kings and Princes for mere moral sins called now (somewhat besides the Scripture use of the word) Scandals ) though we find Princes deposing Priests. It is true, Priests, Levites and Elders had their proper work and moved only in their own Sphears. And so had Princes and Soldiers, but not so as to make two distinct Corporations in Israel. If by Elders of the Assemblies which knew & acted Ecclesiastically in their places, he mean any other than the Priests, and by their Ecelesiasticall knowing and acting, the taking cognizance of moral evils, and proceeding against them by Ecclesiastical censure in a Court distinct from the Civil, I must confess I find not either such Assembly, or such proceedings in the texts brought by Mr C. or any other. I grant there was a dististinction between the matters of the King and of the Lord, 2 Chro. 19.11. & that Amaziah the chief Priest was over the Judges whom Iohoshaphat sent forth in all matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah the Ruler of the house of Judah, for all the Kings matters. But this doth not prove that these men did keep several Courts, but that in the same Synedrium these persons were best fitted to direct, the one in one sort of matters, the other in the other; As in a Parliament, Senate, or Council of Lord's, Bishops, Lawyers, Soldiers, though they sit and act together, yet one may be more specially for one business and another for the other. Nor doth it appear that Jehoshaphat assigned in the Cities some Judges for one kind of causes, and others for others But because there was occasion to have recourse in many difficult cases to the Synedrum at Jerusalem, he instructs them whom they should have there for their help, according to the law, Deut. 17, 8, 9, &c. But I leave the Reader to Mr Seldens books de Synedrijs Etraeorum, to resolve him in this point.
What Mr C. gathereth out of the words of I. S. that he saith, That God made a covenant of grace in general and so with the body of the Jews infants and all, serves not Mr C, his turn, unless he meant his natural seed in-general, which that he did grant in respect of Evangelical grace, I do not believe▪ What he saith touching Baptism, that it sealeth the Covenant indefinitely to all sorts, and that it sealeth an infants present, federal grace, and unto future grace: likewise unto grown ones it sealeth personal grace less principally, covenant-grace principally, is mere fancy without any Scripture, which makes no such distinctions of federal grace and personal, of the sealing one grace principally, another less principally, of sealing an infants present federal grace, and unto future grace, of baptism, sealing the covenant indefinitely to all sorts, which the Scripture makes the act of the person baptized only to testify his own repentance and faith.
I proceed to examine the ninth Section of that Chapter. Sect. 9 Mr C. sets down this Conclusion, That the covenant-interest, at least external and Ecclesiastical of Infants of enchurched believers is Gospel as well as such Covenant-interest of grown persons.
SECT. XLIV. Animadversions on the ninth Section of the same Chapter, in which the Covenant-interest external and Ecclesiastical of infants of enchurched believers is pretended, not proved to be Gospel, in which his allegations of Deut. 30.6, &c. Gen. 17.8. Luke 19 9. Deut. 29.10, &c. Ezek. 16.1, &c. Gen. 9.25.26. and other places are examined.
Answ : IN my Examen page 51. I said, They that say the Covenant of grace belongs not only to believers, but also to their natural children, whether believing or not, these add to the Gospel, and the Apostle saith of such, Gal. 1.8, 9. Let him be accursed. And page 122. It is no wrong to say it, that it is a new Gospel to affirm that this is one of the promises of the covenant of grace, That God will be the God of believers and of their seed; that the seed of believers are taken into covenant with their parents, I cannot derive its pedigree higher than Zwingli. To this Mr C. opposeth his seventh Conclusion with ambiguity and seeming hesitancy. For what else can be the reason of those terms [ at least as well ] which are not like the expressions of a man that is well resolved what to hold? But that we may rip up this Conclusion, 1. He supposeth that right to outward ordinances, or more particularly to an initial seal, is covenant-interest from the covenant of grace, which is a mistake, as I have often shown. 2. That such external covenant interest of grown persons is Gospel without Scripture, which mentions only justification by faith and life by Christ to be the Gospel, not such a covenant interest (as they call it) which may be to reprobates as well as to elect persons. 3. He speaks to believers enchurched by such a covenant as the Scripture mentions not. 4. He annexeth the covenant interest he speaks of to this Church-covenant as well as to the covenant of grace without any warrant but his own conceit, nor shows how far it is annexed to the one with or without the other, 5. He asserts the covenant interest at least external and Ecclesiastical of infants of enchurched believers. 6. That this is Gospel. The first place he brings for his Conclusion is Deut. 30, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, compared with Rom. 10.6, 7, 8, and saith, The matter of the promise, scil: inward power of grace showeth it was a Gospel-promise like that Heb. 8.10, 11, 12.
Ans. This is enough to show the impertinency of this text to prove the mere external Ecclesiastical interest of infants of enchurched believers. For it contains that promise of inward grace, which Mr. B. saith, belongs only to the elect. Friendly Accom. pag. 362. 2 Saith he, Now this was made to the seed or children of these church members, as ch. 29.14, 15. here is not any evasion as is usual in mentioning Abraham's seed, &c. this people to whom this was made, being not so spiritual themselves.
Answ. I grant that the promise Deut. 30.6. of circumcising thine heart and the heart of thy seed, is meant of the seed of those then assembled, but not of all their seed, but only such as were elect, nor at all times, but a special time, upon their return to God when they were in captivity, nor at all to their infant-seed but to their grown seed, as Mr B. proves in the words and place above cited, Friendly Accom. page 361. And whereas Mr. C. conceives the people to whom this promise was made, not so spiritual, he is mistaken. For if God promised to circumcise their heart, they must be spiritual. 3 That it was not a bare tender, which I grant. 4. saith he, Lest any doubt should arise how this should be ratified and made good, Moses prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen in wh • m this covenant was ratified, v. 12, 13. All▪ which the Apostle further explaineth, Rom. 10.6, 7, 8▪
Answ. I do not conceive that either Moses, Deut. 30.11, 12, 13. useth the words there to show how the promise, v. 30.6. should be ratified, or that he prophetically setteth out Christ as dead and risen, Deut. 30.11, 12, 13. or that the Apostle, Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. so explains it. He that reads the chapter may perceive, that Deut. 30. v 11, 12, 13, 14. are brought to this end, that Moses might prevent the excuse which might be made for their disobedience by alleging that God's laws were at such a distance from them as that they could not come to them. And though it is true that the Apostle appli • s those words to the word of faith, Rom. 10.6, 7, 8. yet it is manifest that it was not a prediction of Christ's resurrection, as there the words stand, 1. from Deu. 30.10. where the commandment mentioned v. 11. is said expressly to be [ God's commandment and statute which are written in this Book of the Law. ] 2. That it was that which was nigh to them that they might hear it and do it. v. 14 which is meant of the Law, not of the word of faith concerning Christ dead and risen, which was not to be done by us, but to be believed. Rightly saith Beza, Annot. ad Rom. 10.8. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Hebr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 baddabar, quo vocabulo Moses intelligit legem quam Dominus voice sua promulgavit, audiente universo populo suo, ita ut nullam ignorantiam possit • raetexere, eum ejus tabulas baberet, descriptas, tanquam adeo singuli ex re citare possent, & intus haberent quasi in cognitio • e & animo insculptam: sed quod Moses dixit de lege, hoc totum Paulus ad Evangelium acommodat per allusionem. Pisc: Analys. alludit Apostolus ad verba Mosis, Deut. 30.12. Diodati Annot. on Rom. 10.6. [ speaketh on this wise] S. Paul makes use of this passage, though spoken in another sense.
The like to which he doth in the same Chapter: v. 18. alleging the words Psalm. 19.4. concerning the preaching the Gospel in all the world, which is undeniably meant of the course of the heavens. Nor is it of force to overthrow this exposition, to say, that the word Deut. 30.14. is said to be in their heart, for to be in their heart is there no more than to be understood by them though they were • isobedient, and might be true of the law • s well as the Gospel. No • is it any disparagement to the holy writings, to say that sometimes holy writers accommodate to their purpose words that have o • her meaning in the places where they stand. Whence I infer that the words v. • 1. [ he Commandment which I command thee this day ] do not prove that thereby is meant the very Gospel-Covenant ratified in Christ, but the Commandment given in Horeb Deut. 29.1. nor is there any show of likelihood that the words Deut. 30.11, 12, 13, 14. should be meant of the promise v. 6. of circumcising the heart of their seed, for that was not to be done by them, but God. And though it be true that Moses had that day propounded the Commandments as a mutual Covenant betwixt them and God, as well as God and them the parents or rulers stipulating therein in behalf of themselves and Chidren (or rather in the behalf of the whole nation in present being and unborn posterity) and so in reference to them also a conditional covenant that day in the plains of Moab, Deut. 29.1.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 29, and 30.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. yet the covenant was on their part to keep the commandments of the Law for their prosperity Deut. 29.9. not to believe in Christ (which few of them understood). And when it is said Deut. 29.13. that it was that God might establish them that day for a people to himself, and that he might be unto them a God, it is not meant that they should be all believers, and God to them a justifying and saving God in Christ, Mr. B's. words in his Friendly accommodation, pag. 361. And for that which you urge [Ero Deus tui & seminis] I doubt you will not prove that it reacheth so far as you speak. It sufficeth that God will be to them a God of mercy and do for them all that is necessary to put them in statum salutis pro conditione parvulorum, and Mr. C's own exposition, I will be a God to some in respect of external interest, show that to be a God to some doth not necessarily infer they shall be regenerate and so the covenant of saving grace in Christ be gathered thence. And therefore I deny that Deut. 30.6.11, 12, 13, 14. compared wi • h Rom. 10 6, 7, 8. do evidently or obscurely prove,
Whereunto I answer, I grant his major, but Mr. C. seems not to heed his own Syllogism. For he tells us the minor de jure is evident, they ought to believe and by which words he seems to have concieved, that this was the minor, that they ought to believe the wh • le Covenant: whereas his minor to be proved was this [ the external, Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of enchurched believers is that which believers, as such, have, do and ought to believe as a branch of the Covenant of grace ]. But Mr. C. as a man weary of disputing falls to his dictating way again after his confused manner leaving his reader to aim at what he would prove, and how. That which he should prove is, that the external Ecclesiastical interest of Infants of enchurched believers is that which believers, as such, have, do and ought to believe as a branch of the covenant of grace: surely if they ought to believe it he should produce some promise or declaration that avows it as a constant and certain thing. But instead thereof he falls to Gen. 17.7. and tells us, God in making a Covenant in a Church reference especially, as was that with Abraham Gen. 17.7 he taketh in their seed or children as joint covenanters but what he means by God's making a covenant in a Church reference, or in which words he takes believers seed as joint covenanters with their parents, or in which words the external Ecclesiastical interest of every believers natural child may be proved, he shows not, nor can show, there being no man's seed: but Abraham's there mentioned. He goes on thus; Hence the phrase of seed in their generations taking in parents generating and children begotten as those in and by whom Churches, are like to be continued. Answ. It is true it is said Gen. 17.9. to Abraham [thou shalt keep my Covenant; therefore thou and thy seed after thee in their generations ] and this Covenant is v. 10. every man-child among you shall be circumcised. But that this phrase [ seed after Abraham in their generations ] should infer that God taketh in believeng parents generating and children begotten even of the Gentiles in the Covenant of grace at least in respect of external ecclesiastical interest is yet to me a riddle, I know no more to be inferred thence but this, that not only Abraham, but also the Israelites his posterity were bound to circumcise their males in their generations. But we have more of this stuff.
Answ. Mr. C. in this passage speaks so obscurely that it is hard to say what he drives at, and I may take up the saying, reed me a riddle what's this? He makes a difference between God's speech of Ishmael and Isaac,
Mr. C. then tells us, that God saith in reference to our times he will be a God to the families throughout the earth, and pag. 83. he cites for this purpose the prophecy Ierem. 31.1. but there it is, the families of Israel : But were it, the families throughout the Earth, this proves not that it is Gospel, that Infants of enchurched believers have external Ecclesiastical covenant-interest. If it did, it may as well infer infants of enchurched believers, yea servants (who are part of the families of the earth) to have the same interest, yea all in the world, if we must understand it without limitation, and if with limitation then it is most rightly expounded as the Apostle doth Gal. 3.8. the promise of blessing all nations, of believers v. 9. and so all the families of the earth; to whom God will be God shall be only believers of all the families of the earth Gentile believers as Mr. C. truly saith, without Infants. As • or what Mr. C. observes, that God said to Abrahaham to be a God to him and his seed in their generations not in their regeneration, it is frivolous. For none of the Gentiles seed are Abraham's seed but by regeneration, and so to be Abraham's seed in their generations applied to Abraham's spiritual or Church-seed among the Gentiles is all one as to be Abraham's seed by regeneration. And for the prophecy of being a God to all the families of the earth, it is meant not of every member of the family, but the meaning is that God would not restrain his Gospel and Church to the Jews, but take in any of the families of the earth, who would embrace it, as when it is said Mark. 16.15. preach the Gospel to every creature, (that is) to any Gentile as well as Jews, yet infants not meant. This is proved from the event because parents did believe when children did hate them for it Mat. 10.35, 36. and the husband was often a believe • r the wife an infidel. But saith Mr C.
Answ. By restraining the salvation come to Zacchaeus his house to his person, I do not make Zacchaeus and his house all one; but salvation is come to his house that is, to this place, inasmuch, or in that Zacchaeus is also become a Son of Abraham. But whereas Mr. C. thinks no Scripture using such language, I will use Grotius his words showing the contrary even in Luke, because they are full to answer this passage of Mr. C. Annot. in Luc. 19.9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Synecdoche. Domus enim pro Patre familias dicitur: ita supra. 10.5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Domum autem ideo nominâsse videtur Christus, ut ostendat rel • tam hospitii gratiam. Dixerat enim Zachaeo Christus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Quare quae ad hunc locum afferri solent de beneficiis Dei in familiam pii Patris familias, quanquam vera sunt recte accepta, tamen huc pertinere non arbitror. As for what he saith that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not signify quatenùs, he may know that Scapula puts quatenùs for the first signification of it. What I said, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not only a causal particle, but also a restrictive is not denied by Mr. C. But he thinks it is not good sense to say, according as he is a believer, but rather it is to be taken as a reason of the former. I confess it would not be good sense to say [ according, that is after the proportion that he is a believer] but thus it is good sense to make it to note the reason with restriction, and so our Translators do when they render it [ for so much. ] And this is confirmed in that, if it be expounded that salvation did come to his house, that is his wife, children, servants for this only reason, or cause, because he was a Son of Abraham, in that he was a believer, it may be gathered thence that a man's whole house, or posterity, may be saved barely by his believing: To this Mr. C. saith, No: but as Acts 16.31. upon his believing they shall come in the Gospel-way, in the Covenant road, and ordinary means of salvation. But that this is a false Exposition both places show. That Luke 19.9. must needs be meant otherwise than of the means of salvation with which Zach • us might not have been saved. For besides that to his being a Son of Abraham (not a Son of Abraham's Covenant as Mr. C. speaks (though that be true also) but a follower of Abraham's Faith) salvation is certainly annexed; nor had it been so joyous if he had not meant salvation itself: it is put out of all doubt that he means salvation itself by verse 10. where he gives this reason why he said salvation was come to him, though some murmured at his going in to him; for (saith he) the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost ; therefore he had both sought, and did save Zachaeus who was lost. And for the other place it is as frivolous to expound Acts 16.31. of the means of salvation. For, 1. Paul's Answer is of that of which the Jailor asked him, else he had deluded him by his Answer; but the Question was not, What may I do to be put in the road, ordinary means of salvation, the Gospel way? But, What may I do to escape the wrath due to me? 2. That salvation is meant which was consequent on his believing, but the ordinary means of salvation was not consequent, but antecedent, that which followed on his believing in Christ was the certainty of salvation. Yea to interpret thus, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, that is thou shalt hear the Word, be Baptized, &c. is so frigid and sapless and interpretation as no considerate man, sure no Interpreter besides Mr. C. that I know, did ever give a sense of it. But Mr. C. tells me:
Answ. If this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation, or the covenant and promise itself were usual in Scripture, yet it could not be the sense, Luke 19.9. or Acts 16.31. whether we understand it of the outward means of salvation, the Word and Sacraments, or of the promise of salvation: but must be understood of saving by justification, as Tit. 3.5, 6, 7. For neither is the outward means of salvation, nor the promise of salvation consequent upon being a son of Abraham, and believing as salvation is in those places. 2. Yet in none of the places alleged by Mr C. is salvation put for being in the Gospel way the ordinary means of salvation competent to infants. And for the covenant or promise of salvation itself, he dares not avoch it to be Gospel, that all the infants of enchurched believers have interest in it, and therefore if salvation Luke 19.9. were put for the covenant or promise of salvation, yet it would not prove that it belongs to every son of Abraham's whole house, but Mr C. must limit it to the elect, as I do. Yet let us consider his Texts, that it may appear with how little heed he brings Texts, as if he never examined their pertinency, but heaped them together whether to the purpose or not. They are said to neglect salvation, Heb. 2.3. Ergo, salvation is taken for the outward means of salvation competent to infants or the covenant of salvation. Nay rather salvation is taken for salvation as it was preached and offered, not for the means of salvation competent to infants, nor for the promise of salvation, but for salvation itself neglected in that they did not take hold of it by believing and obeying the doctrine of the Gospel. Acts 28.28, salvation is said to be sent to the Gentiles, and that they would not hear it. But salvation there is the doctrine of salvation, not competent to infants who could not hear it. Rom. 11.11, 12, 17, 19, 30, is not meant either of the bare outward means of salvation, or the covenant of salvation only, much less the outward means competent to infants, Es • y 51.6, 8, the term Salvation is not taken for the bare outward means of salvation competent to infants of enchurched believers. If Salvation 2 Sam. 23.5, did note outward means of salvation, because it is said, This covenant is all my salvation, desire should note outward means of desire, because it is said, This covenant is all my desire. I grant the covenant is termed his salvation Causaliter, or Instrumentaliter, and his desire objestive. The covenant everlasting in all things ordered and sure, was made with David in reference to his house, not in respect of outward covenant interest to the infants of his house (it's a wonder to me that such a man as Mr C. should • o dote, especially after the publishing of Mr Cottons book of the Covenant on that Text) but in respect of the great promise of raising Christ out of his loins, Acts 2.30. or as it is Luke 1.69. Raising up a Horn of salvation for his people in the house of his servant David, and this (that is the accomplishment of this promise) was all his salvation and all his desire, although he did not make his house to grow in secular greatness. I deny not but parents faith may be an occasional means to stave off destruction from, and to further the salvation of their children, as Heb. 11.7.23, 25, 27, 28, Jonah 3, & 4. But this I deny, that barely in this respect, in that the parent is such, the infant of an enchurched believer, whether professing or real, is a visible member of the Christian Gentile Church, and capable thereby of Baptism, or that this is any part of the Gospel. But Mr C. tells us,
Shall it then be yielded that such benefit should come as was before spoken of to adult servants of the house, &c. And is here no reference to the poor Babes by reason of their tender age? Hath the mercfull God revealed no ordinary help for them?
Answer. It is yielded that benefit came to the servant of the Jailors house, Acts 16.31. but not the benefit there mentioned barely by the Jailors faith without their own. Though we conceive infants not meant Acts 16.31. because the Texts, v. 32, 34, lead us to understand by [ the House ] the persons who heard the word, believed and rejoiced, yet we exclude not infants from salvation, nor do we deny to the elect the ordinary help of the Spirit regenerating them, and Christ's mediation for them▪ if they die in infancy, although they have not the ordinary outward means of the Word and Sacraments. And therefore he might have spared his pathetic interrogation sitter for an Orator than a Disputant, and for a Papist than a Protestant. Nor need we exclude them from salvation for want of actual faith because of the words Mark 16.16▪ Heb. 11.6. For either those places may be understood of the act of faith in those to whom the word is preached, or else if it be understood of all infants, they may have faith in seed and act by immediate operation of the Spirit, and yet they not to be baptized, because it is undiscerned by the Minister of Baptism. The Jailor might have encouragement to hope for his Infants salvation, though they were not meant in those words, Acts 16.31. If the election of God be not anything visibly to comfort him concerning his Children, no more is the covenant of salvation, which is comensurtae with election, Rom 9.8. nor is discernible anymore than election, both are alike discerned by the fruits of repenting and believing.
As for Baptism, it could not assure salvation, nor the want of it deba • from it. If it be not said, That the Jailors house believed before they were baptized, yet it is said in the next verse, and in the verse before, that Paul spake the word to all that were in his house.
As for that he saith,
I answer, • f by little children be meant infants of a day or two, or some months old (at which age they baptize infants) I affirm that they are not mean • by the Housholds, Deut. 12.7. and that for the reason given, because they could not 〈◊〉 before the Lord, and rejoice in all that they put their hands unto. Nor do I know any whom he calls Anabaptists, but would like of this arguing: The Jewish Housholds were to eat before the Lord, and rejoice in all that they put their hand to ; therefore little children of a day or two, or some months old, are not any part of the households to whom that precept is given, or of whom that which is there said, 〈◊〉 there meant. For though we all grant that • nfants were circumcised, and in my Examnen, page 169. I say the males that could eat, though not come to years of discretion fit to receive the Lord's Supper, were to eat the Passover, yet I know none of the so called Anabaptists which urge the joint communion of the Jewish children (infants of a few days or months old) in all sorts of Church-ordinances.
What Mr C. saith further, Suppose a man's household, Men, Women and Children, all diseased and cured at the Bath, and afterwards the household expresseth their joy for it by leaping & dancing for joy; and it be said such a man, he and all his were washed at such a Bath, and he & his whole household afterwards even danced for joy: none will say, that because little ones could not so leap for joy, and are excluded from the notion of the [whole household] in this later, therefore they were not in the account of [all his] in the former, if it were granted him, yet the arguing from Acts 16 32. where it is said, That P • ul spake the word of the Lord to all that were of the Jailors house : and v. 34, He rejoiced believing in God with all his house, with the constant narration of the Evangelist in the Acts of the Apostles, mentioning baptizing of none but believers, do evidently show, that by [ all his, v. 33] were meant only those that heard the word and believed. It is true more or fewer of this or that sort of persons or things born or unborn are meant by the terms [House or Household] as the matters and circumstances of the speech lead to, nor need I say that Gen 34.50. under the term House are not meant little children, because of the words Gen. 35.1, 2, 3, 4. Nor need I deny that Infants are often intended by the term House and Household, an Gen. 30, 30, &c. or that they are chiefly meant thereby, as 1 Sam. 20.15, &c. or that they are intended when some parts of the family are expressly instanced in, and children not withal mentioned, as Gen. 14.16. or that children are ordinary instruments to build or hold up a house in natural, civil, religious and Church-respects too, as Exod. 1▪ 21. or that the Covenant-expressions of Seed and Seed in their generations, do more directly reach them as such, than either Wives or Servants, as such, as Gen. 17.7, &c. Yet all this doth neither take away the force of the reasons before given why under [ all his, Acts 16.33.] infants are not meant, much less prove that which Mr C. should prove (which he must do if he will prove his covenant-interest Ecclesiastical of believers seed thence) that in the Jailor's house were infants, and they baptized.
Ezek. 16.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. hath been often shown to be impertinently alleged being meant 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. • ndeavoring to apply to an Ecclesiastical external privilege of Gentile believers infants in the time of the Gospel doth toto Coelo errare. It is neither said there to Jerusal • m then live, nor Micah. 7.20.
Psalm. 102.25, 26, 27, there's not a word of the external Federall Church state of enchurched Gentile Church-believers. But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon, and were the prayer of the Jews▪ 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 shall 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 prophesying of the calling of the Gentiles, or, as some would, of the reingraffing of the Jews, that Paraphrase of Junius may be right: • . Vera & germana Ecclesiae tuae membra conservabuntur in aeternum virtute tua & tibi curae futura sunt. Take i • of whomsoever the words may be verified, it mentions no such thing as external federal Church-interest, but continuance and establishment before God, that is, as Ainsworth notes, as much as so long as God doth dure, meaning forever. For assurance whereof they had a word of faith, to wit, some revelation of God, though no such covenant as Mr C. imagines, int • tuling children of enchurched Gentile-believers to external Church-interest.
Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federal 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 seminal visible Church; whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind; or if as a Church, more likely as the seminal invisible, than as the visible Church. He interprets The Seed of the Woman, not only of the principal 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 enchurched believers. For Adam and Eve were eyed, saith Mr C. as a seminal 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 Woman's Seed mystically understood. There are Interpreters that understand the promise, Gen. 3.15. as made to mankind in respect of the natural Serpent, and the best of Christ's destroying the works of the Devil, 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 external Covenant Church-interest. Believers, it is true, are called Abraham's seed, but nowhere 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 woman's seed, Gen. 3.15. in a spiritual sense of overcoming the Devil, yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby, since no other overcome the Devil. So that it is so far from being true, that this Gospel of Infants of believers external Covenant Church-interest, was held in the beginning of the world, Gen. 3.15. that I rather conceive that it is no elder than Mr C. and am sure is a mere figment. But there is more of this Rubbish to be removed. He tells us,
Answ. If Mr. C. may be allowed to make Gospel of Doctrine so implicitly held forth as his new Gospel is here; I see not why we should so much blame, as we do, Popes for making new Articles of Faith out of places clearer for their purpose, than this is for Mr. C 's. The servile condition of Canaan is refered generally by Interpreters to the bondage they were in when Joshua subdued them, and the Gibeonites were made slaves: which though it did extend to their Children, yet was not such, but that even they were Proselytes many of them to Israel, as Araunah the Jebusite, and after the woman of Canaan is commended for her Fa •• h, Matth. 15.28. and therefore not excluded from the visible Church. And for the blessing of Japheth, whether we read it, God shall enlarge Japheth, as some, or persuade Japheth, as others, I see not how it is well cleared, that the accomplishment of it is in the Calling of the Gentiles descended from Ja • het, as the Greeks, and others into the visible Church, because it is said that Canaan should be servant to Japheth, whereas the Tyrians, and Sidonians, and Carthaginians, and others descended of Canaan were in the visible Church as well, if not as soon, as many of the Posterity of Japheth, as is apparent by the Histories of the Church mentioning Bishops and Synods held among them, and famous Writers. And therefore for my part I incline to think it a Prophecy of the Civil condition rather than Ecclesiastical, whether it were fulfilled in Alexander the great, and the Greek Kings of Asia after him subduing Tyre and Sidon, and possessing Palaestina, of which Judea was a part, or of the Romans subduing Carthage and poss • ssi • g Judea: But • e it taken as a Prophecy of the Ecclesiastic state of these people, with what Argument will Mr. C. prove, That the dwelling in the Tents of Sem, is refered rather to the visible, than the invisible Church? They who will have it accomplished when the Gentiles were fellow-heirs of the same body, and partakers of God's promise in Christ by the Gospel, Ephes. 3▪6. or when the Gentiles were grafted in the stead of the Jews Rom. 11.17. have more reason to understand it only of true believers converted by the Gospel, and so of the invisible Church, than to understand it of the visible Church as visible, as I have shown in the first part of this Review : yet were it meant of the visible Church, there is no Argument to prove it meant of the Babes of Japheth as soon as they are born. For what though it be that Canaan, and Sem, and Japheth • e all collectively taken, yet Mr. C. himself, pag. 161. hath taught us, That Speeches of the whole Body of the Jews, collectively taken, are true, in respect of the choice or refuse part ; and so may, or rather must be the speeches here necessarily understood, Canaan collective neither comprehending every Canaanite in their greatest servitude, nor collective Sem, or Japheth, comprehending every Israelite or descendent from Japheth, but a notable part. And if those of Japheth that dwelt in the Tents of Sem, that is according to the Exposition of Mr. C. were of the visible Church, were brought in by persuasion, and this persuasion was by the Preaching of the Gospel according to the opinion of many Interpreters, the Argument is forcible to the contrary, that Babes are not here meant among the Inhabitants in the Tents of Sem Ecclesiastically expounded, but only such as could hear and understand, and were persuaded by the Gospel to join themselves to the visible Church of Christ.
After this Mr. C. dictates out of Gal. 4.23, 24. Gen. 21.10. That even as Ishmael and hi • were cast out of Abraham's family, and the legal Jerusalem and her Children even the body of the Jews adult and infant were dis-churched, so Ecclesiastical Isaac, Abraham's Church-seed with their Children should be instated in the visible politi • all Gospel-Church. But the Apostle doth not speak of • asting out of the visible Church as such, but out of the Inheritance of Sons, that is justification and salvation, and Jerusalem that now is and her Children is not J • ws as Jews or the body of Jews or adult and infants as Mr. C. speaks: for then many Myriads of Jews believing should be cast out: But Jerusalem that now is, notes the legal Covenant, and her children not Infants born at the City Jerusalem, bu • so many whether of Jews or Gentiles, as sought righteousness by the Law, and not by Christ, as Hagar signifies the legal Covenant, & her Son Ishmael such as were born of the flesh, that is, trusted in the flesh, as the Apostle speaks, Phil 3.3. that is, in their legal righteousness, and carnal privileges. And on the other side, Sarah and Jerusalem above, signify the Gospel-Covenant, verse. 24, 25. which begets Children by Promise, that is, •• cording to the Doctrine of Fai • h in Christ typified by Isaac, and these that believe are born after the Spirit, and do inherit life, righteousness, salvation. There's not a word of Abraham's Church-seed there, or anywhere else in Mr. C. his sense; and [ Ecclesiastic Isaac] is a new Notion, and a mere figment of Mr. C. in his sense; and [ the casting out ] is meant of the invisible Church of the saved, such as do rej • ct Christ, and adhere to the Law; and the taking in is meant of the taking into the invisible Church of the justified and saved, them that believe in Christ, or a • e united to him, and not of an in-Churching of mere visible Professors, Paren • s, and Children into the visible Church by an outward ri • e.
The three Texts next alleged by Mr. C. are all mis • alleged to prove an external Covenant Church Interest of the Infants of in-Churched-believers, to wit, Isaiah 65.20. the impertinency of which to this end, is shown in the Second Part of this Review Sect. 11. the impertinency of Isa. 61.9 and Ezek 37.27. in this Part of the Review before Mr. C. proceeds to a Third Argument.
In answer to which I deny, 1. the Major, or sequel, that [ if Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in their Church estate, before they can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the covenant, yet then are Abraham's Church-seed, then is it Gospel that the promises belong to them. ] Nor is it in substance or circumstance the Apostles, Gal. 3.16. To Abraham and his seed are the promises made. For though it is granted, that it is Gospel that to Abraham and his seed the promises are made, yet it is utterly false that the • e is meant a seed of Abraham, who are neither elect nor true believers, but only the natural children of Gentile enchurched believers, yea of Gentile visible enchurched professors of Faith, whom Mr C. in a new language of his own without Scripture, calls Abraham's Church-seed ; yea, the Text is so manifestly against it, that I wonder Mr C. could imagine any Reader would receive his Dictates about this Text. For the Apostle expressly limits the promises to Christ as the seed of Abraham, and whether Christ be understood personally or mystically, as Beza and others, yet by the Seed are not meant the fictitious Church-seed of Abraham, to wit, the natural children even of infants o • visible enchurched Gentile-believers, or visible professors of Faith▪ but true believers, or elect persons, who alone are members of Christ mystical. And the promises are of the Spirit through faith, v. 14. the inheritance, v. 18. life and righteousness, v. 21, 22, which are made to none but true believers, or elect persons. To which I add that external covenant-interest (if there were such) is never in Scripture termed the Gospel, no not in those who rightly have it, as true believers, but Christ's dying for our sins, and justification by faith in him.
2. I also deny the minor
Answ. There are sundry reasons which make me conceive that in this and many other passages in this argument Mr. C. aimed at myself. Mr. Robert Baillee minister of Glasgow in Scotland had in the 2. part of his Diswasive entitled Anabaptism ch. 4. pag. 92. charged me with spoiling all Infants of all interest in the Covenant of grace, and denying all right to the new Covenant to Jewish Infants till in their ripe years they became actual believers. From which false criminations I have vindicated myself in the Addition to my Apology printed at London 1652. Mr. C. here tells of some
His proof is from Rom. 9.7, • , 9, 10, 11, 16. That elect infants were Abraham's seed in covenant, which I deny not, but say that Rom. 9.8. proves not only, that all the elect seed be included in the promise, Gen. 17.7. but also that the Apostle expressly affirms, that only the elect are the children of the promise understood spiritually, and they only Abraham's seed▪ Acta Synod. Dordrac Judi • . profess. Belgic▪ de 20. Art. pag. 113. Haec propositio [solis electis hoe promissiones sunt factae] ex professo probatur à Paulo, Rom. 9.7.8. Ames. Coron. Art. 5. c. 2. Seminis in • ulcatio solos electos & efficaciter vocatos notari docet Apostolo sic hunc locum interpretante, Rom. 9.8 Gal. 3.16. & 4.28., Mr. Rutherford Exercit. Apolog. 2 c. 2. num. 7. Soli electi dicuntur in Scriptures faederati, filii & hoeredes promssionis, Rom. 9 8. Mr Norton, Mr C. his Colleague, commended by Mr. Co • ton with him, Response. ad Apollon. c. 2. pag. 30. Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi. Dr. Twisse Animadv. in Corvin. pag. 235. Negamus Deum pacisci faedus gratiae cum omnibus & singulis: dicimus h • c fieri solum cum electis. More may be seen to this purpose in my Examen▪ part. 3 Sect. 4, in this part of the Review, Sect. 33. and almost in every Pr • t • stant Wr •• er of note wh • opposeth the Remonstrants of Belgium, and other patrons of Universal grace, freewill, and falling away from grace. But what Mr C. saith and I grant, proves not that Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in Church estate, before the Infants can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the eovenant, are Abraham's Church seed to whom the promise, Gen. 17.7. belongs, but the con • rary: Nor is it he • eby proved, that such Infants are covenanters engaged, or as Ifants of Abraham and Isaac, children of the promise, as if 〈◊〉 formalis ratio of their children's being children of the promise, w • re Abraham's and Isaac's believing and inchurching, as Mr. C. seems to conceive, it being contrary to the express determination of the Apostle, Rom 9.8. which excludes Ishmael and Esau from being children of the promise. Nor is it true, that the change of Abraham's name, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, &c. compared proves that the children of believers enchurched are Abraham's seed, but only th • t believers of all nations are such, Rom. 4.17.
Mr C. glanceth at a passage in my Examen, page 96. wherein I say, that the Apostle, Rom. 4 12. makes Circumcision, a Seal of the righteousness of faith, but not to all, or only circumcised persons, but to all believers whether Jews or Gentiles; so that according to the Apstles doctrine, Circumcision in as much as it sealed to Abraham the righteousness of faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised, so that it is so far from being true that persons have the promise, therefore they must have the seal in their persons; that it follows, persons have the promise, therefore they have the seal in Abraham, • hough they never are nor may be sealed in their own persons.
To this Mr. C. saith,
I reply, I grant the scope to be • o prove Justification by faith; but I say▪ in respect of the present point the words prove no more, but that Abraham's personal ci • cumcision was to him and all that belive as he did, whether Jews or Gentiles, the seal of the righ • eousness of Faith. And I do acknowledge, that if that were all the use of ci • cumcision, there was no simple necessity of any Jew believer to be circumcised in their own persons, yet God might think good ex abundanti more ab • ndantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his Council, as the words are, Heb. 6 17. and therefore would have them also circumcised in th • ir own persons to that end. But however there wer • other ends of circumcision, as • he prefiguring of Christ to come, the distinguishing the Israelites from o • her people, &c. And therefore notwithstan • ing Abraham's circumcision sealed to Jew-believers the righteousness of fai • h, yet it was not needless that they should themselves be circumcised in their own persons for the ends to which God appointed it. And the command being express for their circumcision, they could plead no exemption from their personal circumcision upon that pretence that quatenu • believers they were circumcised in the circumcision of t • eir father Abraham while the command stood in force, no not though all the ends had ceased, as that Christ were come, all other nations were circumcised as well as they, &c. I say, had these ends and all other ceased, yet without God's releasing of the command, they were to be circumcised.
How little that Act of Christ, Luke • 8▪ 1 • , 16, 17. with Mark 10.16. makes for Mr C. his purpose, is shown in the second part of the Review before, and so likewise how impertinently Isaiah • 1.9. & 65, 22. are alleged, is shown before in this part of the Review. I neither grant that enchurched Gentile visible believers are any other where called Abraham's spiritual seed : Nor do I think Anabaptists will grant, that if they were, then are their children also.
But, saith he,
Answer. No person is the Covenant-seed, Gen. 17 7. but Abraham's seed, which being meant of his natural seed, so it includes all descended from him by Isaac and Jacob in their • uture g • nerations; if meant of his spiritual seed [ their g • nerations ] notes either the ages in which they were born by natural generation, or by spiritual regeneration by Fathers in Christ, who beget them by the Gospel▪ 1 Cor. 4 15.
But, saith Mr. C.
Answer. We sever not the subject parties taken into Covenant consideration, as Mr. C. speaks, but distinguish them: Nor do we leave out that No • ation of Seed, scil. in their generations; but take it in, as I have said▪ the Proselytes, if believers, as Abraham, they are his seed by Faith, if no • , they are not 〈◊〉 seed according to Scripture Abraham's Church-Seed is a new-devised term without Scripture: Yet the proselytes and their chi • dren were to be circumcised by virtue of the command, whether they had any part in the covenant or not, as being in his house, though not of his seed. And if by God's solemnly enjoining a Seal to a Blank, or a seal to no Covenant of his, • e meant, that circumcision of the Proselytes was a token of that Covenant which was no covenant of God's, I deny it; it was a Covenant of God's, in which he made many promises, it was not a token of a Covenant that assured nothing, as a paper in which no • hing is written (which we call a Blank) there were promises and persons specified in the covenant. But if the meaning be this, That God solemnly enjoined that such should be circumcised to whom no promise was made in that Covenant, I grant it true Ishmael, &c. and count it no absurdity to say, God in that sense did solemnly enjoin the Seal to be put to a Blank.
Circumcision, in the Institution of it, was a token or sign of the Covenant made with Abraham, Rom. 4.11. to be a Seal of the righteousness of Faith, is said of no ones circumcision but Abraham's. What Mr. C. means, That it was a seal of the righteousness of Faith, not so much Subjective as Objective, Rom. 4. I understand not, except this be his meaning, that it did seal not so much the righteousness of faith to the persons circumcised, as this truth, That righteousness is by faith. Being understood of Abraham's personal circumcision, I conc • ive it sealed both ways, of any other man's circumcision; I find not the Apostle calling it the Seal of the righteousness of Faith. But of Seals and sealing I have spoken sufficiently in sundry Sections before. I shall not contend about that passage, That the Baptism of Simon Magus was in the nature of it, and God's institution, a visible Seal of the most spiritual part of the covenant, and yet did not Iscariot and Magus partake of the spiritual part of the Covenant, my former explication being remembered. And I take it as true which next follows, It is peculiar to the elect to be in the covenant in respect of the participation of the saving efficacy of it, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. And hence observe▪ that none but the elect are rightly said to be in the covenant of grace: For none are in the covenant of grace but they to whom it is made (for what is it to be in the covenant, but to have it made to him? So the Directory, so Rom. 9.8.) But they to whom the covenant of grace is made, are the elect only. The covenant of grace is the covenant of Saving grace, Heb. 8.10, 11, & 10.16. Rom. 11.26. 1 Cor. 11.25. Heb. 13.20. of Regeneration, Justification, &c. But that is made only to the Elect: Ergo. The Minor is proved thus, They to whom it is made, they have the saving efficacy, otherwise God should make it and not perform it, and so his Word fall, which is not to be granted: But the elect only have the saving efficacy, as Mr. C. con • esseth. Ergo. I deny not, Reprobates may in respect of their own profession, be said to be externally in the covenant of grace, in appearance to me • , in the face of the visible Church, but not in respect of God's promise and before him, which they say is sealed in the Sacrament. Nor do I deny the appointment of God to be to circumcise or baptize Reprobates as well as elect, and that the nature of these ordinances is the same on both sorts, though the use and efficacy in part be various. Nor do I deny the covenant with Abraham one, yet hold it is mixed, which is proved from the words of Mr C. here in that it holds forth variety of covenant-blessings; some more common to all, and some more peculiar to a few. But I deny the Gospel doth hold forth blessing, common to any other than the godly. It is true, there are promises of this life, 1 Tim. 4.8. 1 Cor. 3.22. Mark 10.30. and Reprobates have some such outward things as the elect, as clothes, ai • e, life, but not as blessings from the Gospel, neither sanctified in the same manner, nor upon the s • me tenure. As for circumcision, it was the covenant metonymically only, and did confirm the whole covenant sacramentally to elect and reprobate.
Mr. C. yet adds,
To which I answer, That I never denied that elect infants were Abraham's spiritual seed, nor said only by actual faith persons are Abraham's spiritual seed▪ but grant that some infants are Abraham's spiritual seed, whether by election only, or by seed of fai • h, or by such a special secret work as is unknown to us, like Jacob's struggling in the womb, and taking hold on his brothers heel, or John Baptists leaping in the womb of his mother for joy, and so are of the body of Christ, and members of the invisible Church, and thereby saved. But I deny that infants of Gentile believers, whether elect or not, are Abraham's spiritual seed, and in that respect in the covenant of grace or promise of God being their God, and thereby admitted to baptism.
But Mr. C. adds.
Ans. Mr. C. his drift I conceive is to prove, that if Infants of believers be not visible Church-members they have no ordinary state and way of salvation, and that the maxim is true, that out of the visible Church in reference to ordinary times and withal to the ordinary course and way of attainining unto salvation there is no salvation. Against which I oppose that if the maxim out of the Church there is no sal • a • ion, be understood of the visible Church, & the ordinary state & way of salvation, it will as well concern Mr. C. to show how children of believe • rs endued with a reasonable soul and human body, yet still-born or dying in their mothers womb with her and never born are provided for an ordinary way of salvation as well as for us concerning Infants born alive. I suppose they will not say infants dying in their mothers womb and there buried, and never brought to light, are visible members of the Church, who were never visible men, nor that they are to be baptized. What ordinary way & state of salvation external have they more than Mahometanes? If it be said they have election, the virtue of Christ's death the promise of God according to election, the secret work of the spirit I grant it, and the same may be said of Infants living, nor can it be certainly and without doubt denied of Papists and M • home • a • s infants. Though I confess it is far more probable that oridnarily God gives these means to Infants of believers whether Churched or unchurched than to the Infants of others, and rather to the Infants of true believers, than 〈◊〉 professors of faith. Yet I dare not determine certainly thereof because of the express resolution of the Apostle Rom. 9. concerning Ishmael and Esau, and his reference thence v. 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22. And if he count • e certain there is no salvation out of the visible Church in an ordinary way there being no ordinary way to estate Infants in the visible church (which I grant not as well as he) but baptism, then he doth as good as affirm, that ordinarily no infant is saved without baptism, which is either the Popish tenent or not much shor • of it. This will the more urge M. C. because he limits the promise to Abraham's visible Church-seed in reference to Church-covenant, and I supp • se they of N. E. baptize not infants of parents not enchurched; what ordinary way of salvation have children of believers not enchurched, who are not accounted visible Church members when their parents were not? And the like must be said of the children of excommunicate persons, of uncertain original Apostates, who are with them, or some of them no visible Church-members: how are they in the visible Church, and what provision is for them? For my part I conceive that if the matter be impartially considered, I think their doctrine is pressed with the like difficulty that mine is. I affirm that believers infants, and infants of unbelievers, if elect, are certainly saved ordinarily, that is, according to the constant course of God's purpose by virtue of God's p • omise, Christ's death, and the Spirits secret working, though they be neither baptized, nor are visible Church-members and I think they can say no more concerning infants of believers dying with the mother in the womb, and never brought to light, which is no unu • uall thing. I say that it is very probable because of general indefinite promises and frequent experience that the infants of believing parents are e • ect, when the infants of Infidels are not. Yet I cannot affirm they are elect, because the promises are not universal to every believers infants; yea, if they were, as Pedobaptists would have them, universal in respect of external privileges (which is not true) yet rhere could be no certainty of election and salvation inferred thence. And therefore though there be a better ground of hope of the salvation of a believers infant than others; yet in a question concerning • he certain • y of the event whether they are saved or no, I must suspend my judgment, and leave it to God's secret will, having no rule revealed whereby to determine it. If Mr. C. assure anymore, I conceive he will deceive himself and others. Dr. Twisse. Animadversion. in Corvin. pag. 35. saith thus: Ad h • c forte in ea sententia sunt nostri Theologi ut propositum Dei de salvandis fidelium liberis in infantili aetate morientibus haud liquido satis demonstrari in sacris literis. Et sane non diffiteor exitia hujus rei suppeditari nobis ex sacris li • eris indi • i • , quibus tamen acquiescimus. But Mr C. adds,
Answ. I exclude not all infants of believers one or other from the notion of Abraham's spiritual seed, from Covenant and Church-estate, meaning this of being Abraham's spiritual seed, and included in the covenant of grace and invisible Church, which alone can make God to be their God, estate them in Christ, be the ground of a certain hope of their salvation, and that according to an ordinary way. They that teach them to be visible Church-members and baptize them, cannot give parents a grounded certain infallible hope of salvation without this ordinary way; I assen, nor can they give more assurance of that way of Baptism, than may be given without it, baptism not saving without the answer of a good conscience towards God, 1 Pet. 3.21. Neither that nor their imaginary visible Church-membership assuring that they are not under the Devil, nor without God in the world. And if they do, they do it without Scripture, and experience doth too often refute them. Mr C go • s on.
Nor let it seem grievous that our friends and brethren in the Lord of • ame and worth in the Church, have, as it seemeth, urged that in case of such an exclusion of believers children, they are made as Turks or Indians, so far forth in regard that not being in covenant nor Church-estate, the Apostle truly states such persons cases, they are without hope, and without God in the world: He maketh no distinction of potentia remota and propinqua in that case.
Answ. It is a grievance to us their brethren in the faith, that Mr M. and such men of name and worth in the Church, should so misrepresent our Tenet as they do, with whom Mr C. seems to concur. Mr. M. his calumny in misrepresenting my words in his Defense, part 2. sect 10. as if I had said, That I know no warrant to think election to reach believers children more than unbelievers children, that I know no more promise for them than for the children of unbelievers, is answered in my Apology, sect. 14. I have shown here and in my Examen, Part 2 Sect. 10. and in my Apology Sect. 14. that I put the elect of them into the covenant of grace, and in the invisible Church, and this only is the ground of a sure hope of their interest in God, and Christ; and salvation. And that they are elect I give 4 probable reasons which are not competent to the infants of Turks and Pagans, 1. general indefinite promises not made to Turks and Pagans, 2. The payers of parents and godly for them, 3. Their education and breeding among the godly, whereby they are in a nearer possibility to be godly, than others. 4. The • requent experience that the children of the godly prove such; which yet because those promises are not particular and definite, that is, determining this particular go • d of salvation to each particular person, & prayers are made and heard with limitation of God's will & the education may fa • l in its effect, and experience is not so constant, but that it falls out otherwise in many, therefore there's no sufficient ground for certain hope but only probable. Mr M. Mr C. and others, assign • more, to wit being in Covenant & Church-estate. But Mr C. pag. 93. confesseth, It is peculiar to the elect to be in covenant in respect of the saving effi • acy of it, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. And that being in covenant and Church-estate, which he makes common to all, elect and reprobate, cannot assure them certainly of salvation; therefore were it granted that there were such a covenant of Church-privileges and that they were visible Church-m •• bers and to be baptized which I conceive to be fictitious) yet this c • uld 〈◊〉 m • ke the h • pe of their salvation more than probable, no no • • o probable as the reasons I give, where I infer that they do us wrong to instill into people's 〈◊〉 tha • which tends to make us odious, that our doctrine takes awe • y all 〈…〉 hope of infants salvation, dying in infancy, whē in truth the promise of salvation as we assign it is the same w th • he promise as they assign it, & the grounds we give of the hope of the infants interest, are as sufficient to make it probable as th • i • s, • f they were supposed true, which yet notwithstanding all they say, we know a • e fictitious. Now hereby is a plain answer to Mr. C. If Infants of Tur • s be any of them elected, which Mr. C. seems to grant when he saith, God may and sometimes doth and will have some souls brought on to him from Rome, and even amongst the Mohometans, &c. We do grant they are really and before God in as good a condition as believers children, though not in appearance to us and in respect of their present estate, nor can they be said to be without Christ, without God in the world in all respects. But in respect of present state and appearance to us, neither Infidels nor their children are in any condi • ion so hopeful as believers and their children, because of the general indefinite promises they have, the benefit of prayers, which are not with a like a • dency: for Infidels though we pray for them also in a more general manner, the benefit of their education, which if it be to Indians children, yet not with a like care. And if it be, we should not think it absurd to say, that if they be brought into godly families, their salva • ion is hopeful as well as believers children. Else why doth Mr Cotton conceive in the way of the Churches of New England, in the latter end they may be baptized. And the experience is very frequent concerning godly men's children proving godly, but very rare that an Infidels child living among Infidels, is converted. And for a word of promise for faith and hope to rest upon, as I said, it hath been shown, that neither Mr M. nor Mr C. nor any other can produce any promise in Scripture that assures the salvation of an Infant of a real believer, much less of a mere professor dying in infancy; yea, to retort Mr C. his Argument, we are not to sorrow without hope, concerning our brethren that die at age: yet we have no certain word of faith to rely on, but that Go • will be the God of elect and true believers, Luke 20.36 37, 38. But tha • this promise reacheth to our brother deceased at age, we know only probably, though the probability is greater by reason of his profession and conversation, yet at most but probable, notwithstanding those signs, we are not certain he is elect, he may live and die an hypocrite. Many are canonized for Saints in • even who perhaps are among unclean spirits in hell. We therefore in this case are fain to suspend our judgment about the certainty, and to content ourselves with a likely hope upon probable grounds. And so we may do concerning our children according to my doctrine, though I confess the hope is more probable of such a one than of an infant; yet sometimes also there appears as much cause of • ear. How ever this I say, that were it not to make our doctrine of Antipaedobap • ism odious to parents, who being indulgent to their children, are easily moved to passion towards them, th • t say anything of them that seems harsh, and are very much inclined to them and their words that tend to feed • hem with such conceits as occasion their hopes, though but fond, of good to them, our doctrine would be free from this exception. But such courses should be far from men of worth, who should present truth nakedly, without respect to men's affections. As Mr C. tells us, he hath been the longer in proof of this seventh Conclusion, in that it is the very Hinge of the Controversy: So I have answered it more fully, though it have been very tedious to me by reason of Mr. C. his confused and impertinent Dictates. And I do declare that I do not see reason from that which Mr. C. hath said to unsay what I said, that the children of believers covenant-estate, at least Ecclsiasticall, as asserted by Paedobaptists, is a new Gospel, not elder than Zwingli, and therefore rejecting it, I shall hold that to be Gospel which I find so called, 1 Cor 15.1, 2, 3, 4, &c. Rom. 1.16, 17. Gal. 3.8. 2 Tim, 2.8. Rom. 2.16. and such like places and wish Mr. C & others of his mind, who upon such uncertain and impertinent allegations, impose their Gospel upon men's consciences, to ponder with more seriousness the Apostles words • , Gal. 1.9. If any man preach any other Gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
SECT. XLV. Mr C. his Answers to objections against his seventh Conclusion, part. 1. c. 3. Sect. 9. of his Just Vindic. are considered, and Mr. Bl. his Tenent concerning the general term of a Covenant, that it is a mutual agreement.
I Wave the first Objection here, and for my speeches about Pharez, Zara, and others, and that of the Jews being branches of the Olive by their birth, that I forget not myself, and how far I own them and wherein I correct them, or explain them, may be seen in the first part of the Review, Sect. 6.1 • , 21.
The second objection is thus, If Infants be in the Covenant of grace, and born so, then such Infants were born in the Covenant, and never out. And besides, God's Covenant of saving grace bi • g absolute, and undertaking to give saving grace to such as are in covenant with him, all such must be saved, unless God fail of his truth.
To this Mr. C. answers, 1. That Covenant of grace, as I. S. acknowledgeth it to be mentioned, Deu. 29. it was made with little ones then unborn intentionally, v. 14, 15. as well as with those then present actually: So that when they were born▪ they were born in the covenant and never out. As much may be said of the Infant Elect seed, or children of the promise dying infants, they were born so, and never out of that estate after they were actually existent: yea they were all girded in the covenant, Jer. 13.
Answ. The passage Deut. 29.15. is not meant of God's covenant or promise to them, but their promise or covenant to God, as appears in that v. 14. Moses is said to make the covenant with them, that is, to engage them in their own persons for themselves and little ones to own God and his laws, and v. 15. it is said, before the Lord our God, which shows that the person making that covenant, v. 14. was distinct from the Lord, and this Covenant he made with him that was not there with them that day, to wit, the unborn posterity, as rightly M. C. and others eonceive, and this Covenant Moses made with them by engaging them by an oath of their P • inces and progenitors, in the same sense as Saul and the Israelites were bound to the Oath made by Joshua and the Princes of Israelites to the Gibeonites▪ So that those unborn are not said to be in God's Covenant of grace as made by him, and so intentionally only because not existent; but they were in covenant with God virtually, because of the Obliga • ion which lay on them by their progenitors and Princes engagement for them to take the Lord for their God, and upon their obedience God engaged himself to establ • sh them to be a people unto himself. And this, I confess, did ever oblige them; but it is nothing to the objection which speaks of God's Covenant as made to infants, not of infants Covenant as made to God. Nevertheless I confess what ever were the Authors meaning in that Objection, it is no absurdity to grant, that elect infants dying so, were born in the Covenant and never out, that is, they had the promise of God made to them at, yea and before their birth, and in respect of the actual possession of the benefits of the covenant, they were in the covenant before their death and never out. But so are not elect infants dying in respect of outward Church-privileges, they are not born visible Church-members, nor subject to be baptized.
2. Saith Mr C. God's Covenant did not barely offer, or promise to covenant; but made a Covenant, a Covenant and an Oath with them that day, Deut. 29.12, 13, 14, 15. and amongst other promises engaged himself to circumcise their hearts chap. 30.6. yet were not all in heart circumcised, and yet the promise of God failed not, being in the general propounded to them conditionally, and not as it is said here absolutely, at least it had reference to them all in common. The word of the promise took not effect in as many of the Jews to whom the covenant promises externally belonged, yet it followed not, that therefore it took no effect at all, and that God was unfaithful, for it took effect in others, Rom. 3.3. and 9.6, 7, 8. And so here.
Answ. What this is to the objection which is here answered, I do not well understand. God's covenant of saving grace, whether expressed Gen. 17.7. to A • raham and his spiritual seed, or Heb. 8.10 or elsewhere, is absolute in respect of the persons to whom, God takes into covenant persons of his own good pleasure without any previous disposition moving him to promise to this rather than that, though some benefits of that covenant are promised upon condition, and all those to whom it is made, must be saved, unless God fail of his truth. But for the Covenant, Deut 29.12, 13, 14, 15. it was their covenant to God, as well as God's covenant to them, nor was it the covenant of grace according to the Gospel made to Gentile-believers, but a national engagement of the Israelites to observe the laws of God which Moses made with them at God's command in the Land of Moab, besides the Covenant which he made with them in Hor • b, and God's engagement thereupon to take them for a people while they observed his Laws In which covenant first Moses tells them what God hath done for them, notwithstanding their dullness to perceive it; and then ejoyns them, v. 9 to keep the words of the Covenant and do them, that they might prosper in all that they did : and then tells them, that they all stood there in a full Assembly, that they might be engaged for themselves, their little ones, strangers within their Camp, and posterity to observe God's Commands, and then tells them that God would establish them for a people unto himself, that is, that he would continue them to be a distinct people to him from other nations, and be a God to them according to his oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that is, to drive out • he Canaanites, to give them their Land, to make them great and prosperous, which is manifestly a covenant proper to Israel, and it is not denied to be propounded to them conditionally, and to have reference to them all in common, and was of the same sort with the covenant at mount Sinai ▪ not the covenant of regenerating and saving grace made to the Gentiles, called the new Covenant confirmed by Christ's blood, Deut. 30.6. God promised to circumcise their heart and the heart of their seed : which promise I do not now conceive to be conditional: For though v. 2. there be a condition expressed, yet I think it is not a condition of the promise v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. to wit, of restoring from captivity upon their seeking of God. But if it be made a condition of the promise v. 6. yet it is not a condition competent to Infants, nor is it there made to any but the Israelites, and to them only at the time of their return from captivity in reference to their reestablishing in the land of Canaan, and so was not common to them all, much less to all believing Gentiles at all times. It is untrue that the promise of saving grace is made to any only externally, or that it takes not effect in all to whom it is made, or that any such thing is meant Rom. 3.3. & 9.6, 7, 8. though I deny not that there were many promises to Israel after the flesh, which being indefinite in respect of persons, and conditional upon obedience to the laws given by Moses, took not effect in all the Israelites, though in general propounded, and therefore notwithstanding some attained them not, yet the faith of God was not without effect. But all this is nothing to the objection concerning God's covenant of saving grace in Christ, which is not shown to be made to any but the saved, nor shown to be in respect of the persons taken into covenant conditional.
3 Saith Mr. C. This Argument supposeth that one cannot be within the Covenant of saving grace externally, but they must be in a saving estate, the contrary whereunto appeareth, Concl. 3. And it is said of sundry illegitimate Jewish Children, that they were within the covenant of saving grace, namely externally: for the Author cannot mean other. And yet of all such who will say, they were all in a saving estate? Even Esau's Birthright was more than right to Isaac's temporal estate as born of Isaac, it was a Church blessing as well as a Natural and Civil.
Ans. That any one is in the covenant of saving grace only externally, is not proved before. My words Examen pag. 78. which M • C. seems to mean, [ • h • t Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar, Jephie of Gilead, and many others were within the covenant of saving graces and Church-privileges] are not meant of the covenant of saving grace ex • ernally only, but also internally. Esau's birth-right was more than right to Isaac's temporal estate as born of Isaac, it is that which Jacob was not born to, for it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the right of the first born, which Jacob had not but by purchase and blessing, nor is it denied to be a Church-blessing, but that it was the spiritual blessing promised to Abraham's seed, to wit justification and salvation from the covenant of saving grace I do not conceive: for that was not limited to the first born as the birth-right was, and therefore it se • ms to have been either the superiority, or the inh • ritance of Canaan, or the descent of Christ and the Church of God from him (to which I most incline) the loss of wh • ch being a great loss, and having with it the privation of interest in the covenant of saving grace, he being h • ted of God, made Isaac tremble and Esau cry, and were a 〈◊〉 instance to set before the Cristian Hebrews, lest th • y through profane under •••• ing Christ, fail of the grace of God.
Mr. C. adds 3. Object But saith • . S. the Covenant of grace being a Covenant, there must be a mutual agreement betwixt the Covenanters, and so knowledge and consideration of the terms thereof, and restipulation as in men's covenants. Henry Den a little differently maketh a necessity of the persons entering into covenant with God, scil. by faith unto covenant-right, and not merely God's entering into Covenant with the creature, for so he entered into covenant with the Beasts, &c. Gen. 9 10. Answer. To which I answer, the covenant of grace is as well a Testament, 1 Cor. 11. Heb 9. Now a Testament may be, and useth to be made in reference to little ones without their knowledge, nor do any us • to deny a Childs right in the Testators will because it was taken in amongst other Legacies in the bequeathed Legacies before it understood the same. Nor will it be denied in the case of the elect seed, the choice parties in God's Covenant, Gen. 17. That they, many of them, dying Infants, without actual knowledge, were not therefore children of the promise, or that that solemn Covenant Deut. 29.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 30.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, &c. with that people, wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts, that therefore the Covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood▪ nor could actually subscribe to the conditions, the contrary being there expressed: No, rather it sufficed, that the children's covenant-estate being the parents privilege, whence the encouragements to Abraham to walk with God, Gen. 17.1, &c. from that amongst other encouragements, that God would become his Seeds God also, &,. v. 7. and so Deut. 29 and 30. amoongst other encouragements to the parents that is one, v. 6. that God will do so for their seed also: yea the children being reckoned as in their parents, as Levi paid Tythes in Abraham, &c. Yea, the external avouching a Covenant may be of God, being owned as the children • , Deut. • 6.16, 17. yea the children's circumcision being as well the parents covenant duty: whence called the Covenant, or the covenant parties covenant part or duty as well as the token of God's Covenant, Gen. 9.7, 9, 10, 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms, as well upon their children's part as their own & they restipulate in a passive reception of the Cvenant-condition and Bond too after imitation of their Father Abraham's faith and obedience: To which purpose • . S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenan • : yea, the bastard children of Judah and Gilead, and others, are acknowledged to be in the Covenant of saving grace, which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actual knowledge, or faith, or the like.
Answ. The Objection, as it is not mine, so I might let it and the answer pass, but that there are some things in the answer to it, that do requi • e consideration. In the first part of this Review▪ Sect. 5. answering Mr. Stephens his argumen • s for the Convertibility, as he ca • ls i • , of a word of promise and a word of command, from the general nature of Covenants between men and men, I had said, the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • o not always note a mutual covenant, and mutual performanc • s▪ and instanced in Gen. 9.10. and said,, there is a single covenant as well as mu • uall, and further added, that if it be true, that such a convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the general nature of Covenants, then there can be no Covenant between God and Inf • nt 〈◊〉 Infant cannot contract. If any say the Parents do 〈◊〉 act for them to: I say, Be it so; then according to this arguing, they should also seal o • be sealed for them Hereup • n Mr Bl. Vindic F • d. Append. pag. 470. takes occasion to answer part of this, maintaining pag. 479. that there is a mutual contract, and mutual performances, to which persons are engaged, not only usually in covenants, but in all covenants, and that i • is of the general nature of Covenants, that there should be such a convertibility as that both must, if not seal, yet contrast or perform, and where a Seal is vouchsafed, must accept of it. And to the allegation of Gen. 9.9, 10. answers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is taken improperly, as Job 5.23.
Whereto I reply, That it must needs be confessed, that Covenant, Job 5.23. must needs be understood improperly, for the stones of the field cannot properly covenant, that is, promise anything, who are there said to be in covenant with Man, But Gen. 9.9, 10. where God is said to establish his covenant with all living. I see not why it should be taken improperly, since covenanting doth properly agree to God, who doth in proper sense promise, and in improper sense it would not be rightly said of God, that he did not make a Conant, but as it were make a covenant, or do some other thing which is resembled by making a Covenant, which must be the explication of that phrase if God be conceived to speak improperly. If Mr Bl. do conceive any Tropicall impropriety of speech in that expression, I suppose he cannot reduce it to any Trope in Rhetoric, but that he will ma • the sense of the words. And if God's Covenant with Noah and his Sons, be properly understood v. 9. I see not any reason why the same term wi • hout repetition applied to beasts, as the object of the Covenant, c • n be taken any otherwise than properly. Besides, this Covenant Gen. 9.15 seems to be called God's Oath, Isa. 54.9. and therefore is properly taken. Nor do I know any Interpreter who understands it improperly. Pareus hence gathers, Foedus hoc est universal Dei cum omnibus creaturis terrestribus. & est absolutum non conditiona • um. And the New Annotations of Mr. L • y▪ on Gen. 9 10 have it thus: Some allege this place against the Anabaptists, and thus it may serve to refute this fancy, viz. that the Covenant of God may be made with, and the seal of the Covenant applied to creatures that have not the use of reason, which they deny, in denying the administration of Baptism to them. Which pass • ge although it have this falsehood, that we deny that the Covenant of God may be ma • e with or to Infants: yet it appears that they who speak thus, understand God's covenant Gen. 9.10▪ properly. The promise Heb. 8.10. of writing God's Laws in their hearts, is called the Covenant, unto which no covenant is prerequired, and to take away the evasion, as if it were not a covenant properly so called, but a prophecy, or but a part of the covenant, there being other promises which prerequire conditions, it is to be observed, that it is not only called the better Covenant, v. 6. as being made a Law upon better promises, and having a better Priesthood to execute it, but also it is opposed to the Old Covenan • , and as coming in its stead, and therefore if in the one it be properly meant, it is so in the other: and Jerem. 32. • 0. the promise, that He will not turn away from them to do them good, but will put his fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from him ▪ is his Covenant. The Covenant to Abraham and his se • d is called Promises, Gal 3.26. which shows that promise • s on one part may b • called • Covenant. And though in De • ds indented there are mutual promises, yet in Deeds Poll as the Lawyers call them, I think a person is said to covenant to another, though there be no condition or promise required of him to whom the Deed is made. As for that which Mr. Bl. saith, Where there is a Seal vouchsafed, the party to whom the promise is, must accept of it: it is true if it be required, but it is expected that it should be shown, that God ever required the Infants of believers to be baptized in their own persons.
To return to Mr. C. Most of the things he answers are granted, or else examined before; but the chiefest thing in the answer is denied, to wit, that Parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant, and their passive reception of the Covenant-condition and Bond to after imitation of their Father Abraham's faith and obedience, is or may be termed the Infants restipulation intituling to Baptism.
In the answer to the next Objection, Mr. C seems to charge us rather than himself, to block up the ordinary way to regeneration, and to debar believers children from the ordinary means of their chief good, by denying them interest in the Word of Promise, the which is such a means, &c.
But therein Mr C. his charge is but vain: For the word of Promise, which is the means of regeneration, is not the covenant of external privileges, but the promise of saving grace in Christ, which we debar them of no more than Mr. C. doth. And when he denies that he makes every believer to be Abraham, sure he must do so if he expound Gen. 17.7. I will be a God to thee Abraham, that is, to every believer, and to thy seed, that is, every believers seed. And when he grants that God doth not promise such a particular Land now as to Abraham, and that the multiplying of Abraham's, &c. was of peculiar consideration, he must grant that the Covenant made with Abraham had peculiar domestic promises not common to all believers, which is all one as to say, it was a mixed covenant, and that circumcision had some reason from the promises in the covenant, which were p • culiar to Abram's natural posterity, which is sufficient to prove there is not par ratio ▪ or the same reason of bapt • zing infants, as for circumcising them. I find nowhere any but Abraham a Covenant-Father, as Mr. C. would have it, nowhere doth God say he would be a God to Isaac, and Jacob, and to their seed : Nor is it said, Rom. 11.16.28, that they were covenant Fathers to their posterity, nor Jesse a Covenant-root to David, Isai. 11.1. And by Mr C. his Doctrine, enchurched believers are made Abraham's, since it makes the prom • ses to be to them and their seed, which is ascribed to Abraham only, Gal 3.16. Luke 1.55.
But Mr. C. objects, That the Apostle calls all those enchurched Jews of old, our Fathers, Fathers to him and to the Gentiles, Corinthian members, 1 Corinth: 10.1, &c.
To which I answer, They could not be called the Corinthians natural parents, being not descended from them; nor their Covenant-fathers, for they were many of them such, as God was not well pleased with, v. 6. and the Corin • hians desce • ded not from them, and therefore derived no ex • ernall Church-privilege from them: therefore either it must be understood that they were called Ancestors of the Corinthian Christians, who are called Idolaters, chap. 12.2. either in the sense we call any in foregoing generations our Fathers though we are not descended from them by natural generation, or else by the Figure of communication, wherein that is spoken as common to others with the persons mentioned, which is not common indeed, but either ou • of familiarity, indulgence, desire to ingratiate, or such like reason we attribute it to them to whom it is not to be attributed, as Paul, Ephes. 2.2, 3. Peter 1 Pet. 4.3. which was not true of them. Philip. 3.6. Acts 23.1. but meant of the Gentiles to whom they wrote, Col. 2.13. Gal. 2.15. and so Our Fathers is not of you Corinthians, but of me and Softheues, 1 Cor. 1.1, or by an enallage of persons, as when Paul saith, 1 Thess. 4.17. we which are alive, it is not to be conceived to be true of himself, or of any of the Thessalonians to whom he then wrote, but it is [ We ] for [ They ] the first for the third person.
But saith Mr. C.
The term Root, and first Fruits, and the term Fathers, Rom. 11.16.28. are not proved to be the same. The Fathers, it's not denied to comprehend Isaac and Jacob, as well as Abraham : But they are called Fathers there in respect of the natural genera • ion of the Israelites to be re-engraffed, not as Covenant-Fathers propagating external Church privileges even to Gentile enchurched believers: For they are there reckoned as the Israelites progenitors, not the Gentile enchurched believers progenitors. Yet I deny not that God hath reference in that passage to his covenant made with them, and his love to them▪ and so the Jews now broken off, yet are beloved by God, with an intention to restore their posterity out of remembrance of his ancient amity and covenant with their forefathers, which cannot be verified of the Gentile enchurched believers in respect of their children. Neither Gen. 26.3, 4, 5, nor Gen. 28.13, 14, is either of the Evangelical promises made to Abraham, Gen. 17.5, A Father of many Nations have I made thee, or that v. 7. to be a God to him and his seed, made either to Isaac, Gen. 26.3, 4, 5, or Jacob, Gen. 28.13, 14. though the promises of multiplying their Seed, blessing them, giving them the land of Canaan in their Seed, blessing all the Nations or Families of the earth, be there mentioned, which, with sundry passages, of the Apostle Rom. 4.11, 12, 16, 17. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Gal. 3, 16, 29, and other places assure me those Evangelical promises, Gen. 17.5.7. were made to Abraham peculiarly, neither as a Patriarch out of a reason common to him with other Patriarchs, nor as a believer • ut of a reason common to him wi • h other believers, but out of a peculiar consideration of • im, either as Father of believers by his exemplary faith, or as a person elected by God to have the covenant instated in him and his seed.
As for Mr. C. his answer to the objection from Rom. 4.16. if that Text prove not that all that are Abraham's seed are actual believers, yet i • proves that the promise is sure to all that are Abraham's seed by actual believing as he did, and consequently are saved.
To his question, If all members of the visible Church be not Abraham's seed, what right have they to the seal of the covenant made to Abraham's seed ? I answer▪ Right to Circumcision • nd Baptism is not from the Covenant, but according to God's appointment to some, whether they be in covenant or not, Abraham's seed or not.
Gal. 4.26, 28, 31. Gal. 3.29. I have formerly shown that by [ Vs all ] are not meant every Galatian Christian Professor, but true believers, as Rom. 8 32. 1 Cor. 12, 13. 2 Cor. 3.18. & therefore thence it cannot be gathered, that any mere professor of faith is Abraham's seed, much less his infants. None but true believers are said Gal. 3.27, to be baptized into Christ, and to put on Christ, though others were baptized into his Name: which appears verse 26. where they are said to be the Sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, and yet there were other than elect persons in that Church, and they baptized. Mr. C. methinks should not be ignorant that what is said of persons in the Churches indefinitely, is sometimes verified only of the choice party, 1 Cor. 1.1. 1 Thess. 1.4. 1 Pet. 1.5. & 2.9. by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part Nor doth Mr C. his distinction of baptizing into Christ, putting on Christ, being Children of the promise, being by one spirit baptized into one body, attributing these to all Sacramentally, and in facie Ecclesiae, suit well to these places, in which the predicate cannot be attributed in truth to those that are merely such.
As for the last Objection, Mr. C. must needs be guilty of making three parties in the Covenant, Abraham, his seed Believers, and their Infants. For Believers are not comprehended under Abraham, but under his seed, nor believers natural infants comprehended under Abraham's seed, except they be true believers, or elect persons, nor in the covenant made to Abraham and his Seed doth Abraham sustain the person of all believers, Jews and Genti • es, but of the Father of them, and therefore as yet Mr. C. his Conclusion remains unproved, that the Covenant interest at least External and Ecclesiastical of Infants of enchurched Believers, is Gospel, but a Figment of Mr. C. not found in Scripture.
SECT. XLVI. The 27, 28, 29 Chapters of Mr. Blake's Vindic. Faeder is are examined, and it is shown, That he hath not proved the Covenant of Grace in Gospel times to admit or to be made to any but the Elect regenerate.
SIth Mr. Bl. is accounted one of the chief Patrons of Infant Baptism, my purpose is to examine the remainder of that which he hath written in his Vindic. Foed. against me for Infant Baptism, and may be conceive • d to be yet unanswered. Ch. 27▪ pag. 189, 190. he heaps up many texts to prove that in Old Testament times the Covenant was made with Israel in the uttermost latitude and extent with all that bore the name of Israel, which I grant, understanding it of the National Covenant, Deut. 29. and of the Covenant of the Law, Exod 20. &c. but deny it being meant of the Covenant o • Evangelical grace, which is the only Covenant the people of God are now under, and which alone is the question now, Who are in this Covenant? or to whom is this Covenant or the promise • of it made by God? I assert as before, Sect. 33. That it is made only to the Elect▪ And M. Bl. pag. 191. yields that many Orthodox writers seemingly restrain the Covenant one • y to the Elect and regenerate. But he adds some distinctions, whereby he thinks what they say may be salve • from self contradictions. 1. Of a twofold Covenant, 1 a single, 2▪ a double to perform both parts, to save upon repentance, and to give a new heart : But he doth not show that there is any Evangelical Covenant now which is not double, nor that either the double or single is made with any but the elect. 2. Of an inward Covenant, which • e grants to be made only to the elect; and an outward, which, he saith, is a Covenant properly so called, and which Scripture holds out for the Covenant of God with his people, in which all professed Christians so called are, which puts them into a capacity of Sacraments, and their children of the initial Sacrament : But what this outward Covenant is, or where it is to be found I know not; what I find about it • s shown to be vain, Sect. 25. and Mr. Bs. refutation of it in his Apology against Mr. Bl. pag. 66, 67, 10 • ▪ saves me any further labor to show it to be a figment 3. Of being in Covenant according to title to the Covenant, or to the benefits of the Covenant ; and saith, the right of Covenant belongs to all that externally mak • profession, the benefit only to the elect. But I know no right of Covenant, but what is by God's promise, and surely all to whom God promiseth have the benefit of the Covenant; and to imagine, that the Covenant of grace is to any to whom the grace following the Covenant is not, is to make God's Covenant and word to fall, which the Apostle abhorred, Rom. 9.6. and to make the Covenant of grace as liable to complaint • s the first Covenant, contrary to Heb. 8▪6, 7, 8, 9, 10▪ 4. Of entering into Covenant, which all visible professors do, and stedfastness in it, which do only the elect and faithful, Psal. 78.3 • . But this text speaks not of the Covenant of Evangelical grace as if any were entered into it who were not steadfast in it: but of the Covenant of the Law with the Jewish people, which is not the Covenant in which the Gentiles are under the Gospel. And to Mr. Bls. confused talk I again say, 1. That the Covenant of Evangelical grace is made by God only to the Elect, and that in respect of God's promise none but they are in the Covenant, nor is there to any right to Sacraments or capacity of an initial Seal barely by that being in Covenant. 2. That profession of Faith may cause a man to be taken to be in the Covenant by the guides and brethren of the visible Church, in the face of which he may have title to Sacraments, but his infant children have no title thereby to Baptism. 3. That from the beginning none but the elect had the Covenant of grace made to them. 4. That from the beginning it is not proved the children with their parents to have been no not in the imaginary outward Covenant. But let • s v • ew what Mr. Bl. saith▪
1. He alledgeth Matth. 28.19.
Answ. It is not confessed by me that a Disci • le of Christ, that is every Disciple of Christ is in Covenant with God, meaning it in respect of God's Covenant or promise of Evangelical grace made to him, nor do I know of any Covenant, Matth. 28.19. committed to man to work, and to judge of it being wrought, and to put a seal for ratification and confirmation, though I grant every Disciple professing Christ is in some sense in Covenant with God, that is, by his act of profession doth engage himself to follow Christ, and so in that respect is in Covenant with God, and that Matth. 28.19. the Apostles are enjoined to make Disciples by preaching the Gospel, and baptize them, which may be done without working a Covenant between God and man, (which phrase doth imply that a Minister can work God into Covenant, which is in my apprehension an absurd conceit) or judging of a Covenant being wrought, or putting to a seal for confirmation of it. And for the absurdities Mr. Bl. infers from the denial of restraining the Covenant to the elect, I count the first not to follow upon my tenet, since I conceive a man may be a Church-member who is not in the Covenant of grace; and for the second, I count it no absurdity according to my explicat • on before given, Sect. 34▪35. though I do withal declare, that the seal of the Sacrament is a term I reject for the reasons given before, Sect. 31. And for the third, I count it no abuse to put a seal to a blank, that is, to baptize a person who is not in the Covenant of Evangelical grace. As for the 2d. argument Mr. Bl. would draw from Matth. 28.19. to prove that the Covenant of God is only a Covenant professed, because Matth. 28▪19. a whole Nation is in God's ordinary way of administration in a capacity to attain and enter into it, it is answered in the 2d. Part of this Review, sect. 9. where it is shown that Matth. • 8.19. there is no such command as to make Disciples, and bap • ize the whole of a Nation, even the infants.
Mr. Bl. adds a 2d. text, Matth, 20.16. & 22.14. whence he argues thus;
Answ. The consequence of the major is denied, and to the proof of it I say, 1. The call is not into Covenant with God in the sense which 〈◊〉 n • w in question: For now the question is, Whether there be a Covenant in the N. T. wherein God engageth himself to be God, and to account for his people any besides the elect? Now no man is called into Covenant in this sense, for no man is called to engage God to be God, &c. it were an arrogant act to call or invite men to engage God, it is God only who is to do this, and therefore if any were to be called to this, it were God himself. 2. It is not true, that to conceive men to be called of God, and not to be in Covenant with him is a full contradiction. For though the calling mentioned Rom. 8.30. do always bring men into an estate of being in Covenant with God, yet not the calling Matth. 20.16. & 22.14. For though the calling there have a Terminus a quo & ad quem, in the one resembled by calling to work in the Vineyard, in the other by calling to a Wedding feast; yet that everyone that was called had a new state on which he did enter, is not true: For even those who refused to come were called, Matth. 22.3, 4. and the m • n who came in without a Wedding garment, though he sat down, yet was not in a state of Covenant, or acceptance, but was thrust out. Nor is Mr. Bls. arguing of any force. Men are called into Covenant with God, therefore they are in Covenant with God: For by the same reason it might be inferred, the same men are called into the fellowship of Christ, 1 Cor. 1.9. into the Kingdom and glory of God, 1 Thes. 2.12. therefore some non • elect persons are in the fellowship of Christ, in the Kingdom and glory of God, which is false.
Mr. Bl. adds Mat. 13.24, 25, 47. & 3.12. & 2 Tim. 2.20. whence he argues thus.
Answ. It is granted that good and bad, elect and non-elect are in the visible Church, and so in the Kingdom of Heaven, if by it be meant the visible Church: but that a man in the Kingdom of Heaven is a man that is in Covenant with God, that is a man in the visible Church is a man that is in Covenant wi • h God, so as that God hath made a Covenant or promise of Evangelical grace to or with him, is denied, nor is; or ever will be proved by Mr. Bl.
A 4th. text is Heb. 10.29. whence he saith,
Answ. Neither do I conceive tha • it is Christ who is said to be sanctified by the blood of the Covenant : For though I grant he is said to be sanctified, Joh. 10.36. and to sanctify himself, Joh. 17.19. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to consecrate or make perfect, Heb. 2.10. & 5.9. & 7.28. Yet I do not find 〈◊〉 phrase applied to Christ anywhere, that he is said to be sanctified by the blood of the Covenant ; but still applied to those that a • e bought by Christ, Heb. 10.10, 14. & 13.12. Nor doth it so well suit with the Apostles aim of aggravating the s • n o • Apostasy from Christianity, to mean it of Christ's being sanctified, as of the Apostates being sanctified heretofore by that blood of the Covenant which he now counted common, or unclean: Nor do I conceive it can be meant of such a mere external sanctification, whether by Baptism, or external profession, as Mr. Bl. and others conceive. For 1. the sanctification here is the same with the sanctification meant, ver. 10, 14. & 13.12. But that sanctification i • more then such an external sanctification, e • en such as perfects forever them that are sanctified, v. 14. and hath with it the writing and remission of sins according to the Covenant which is set down v. 15, 16, 17. 2. No where is such an external sanctification ascribed to the blood of the Covenant; but to ascribe to it such a mere external sanctification in any sanctified by it, is to d • minish the virtue of it, as if it did no more then the legal sacrifices, contrary to the Apostles arguing, Heb. 9.12, 13, 14. 3. Nor thirdly, had it aggravated the Apostates sin to say that he had counted the blood of the Covenant wherewith he was sanctified only externally, a common thing : For this had shown no more evil in the disestee • of Christ's doat • , then if the blood of the legal sacrifices which did san •• ifie externally, Heb. • .12. had been counted unclean. Therefore I conceive the sanctifying Heb. 10.29. meant of the effectual sanctifying before God, meant Heb. 2.11. & 10.10▪14. & 1 • .12. but yet understand the sanctifying, Heb 10▪29. not of what was so really, but of what was according to their own opinion, and profession embracing the Christian Doctrine. Even as Gal. 5.4. Whosoever are justified by the Law, that is, Whosoever of you do avouch that you are justified by the Law. Luke 15.7. some are said to be just persons needing no repentance ; that is, in their own opinion and profession, as those Luke 18.9. And thus I conceive is that speech also to be understood, 2 Pet. 2.1. and hereby the Arminian argument from both places for Universal Redemption, and Apostasy of Saints is avoided. Now these may be denied to have been in Covenant, that is, to have been of those to whom God promised Gospel grace, since they were only sanctified according to their own opinion and profession▪ yea though the sanctification were meant of being sanctified externally, and this were from the blood of the Covenant, yet it follows not that those who are sanctified thus are in Covenant with God, as the meaning of those is who say the elect only are in Covenant, that is, the Covenant of Evangelical grace is made by God only to the elect.
Mr. Bl. adds
Answ. The noise I make is not a mere sound without reason, nor is any one of my reasons made void by Mr. Bls. answers. To him I reply▪ 1. That his speech is inconsiderate when he saith the text speaks fully to hold up a Covenant in this latitude, which comprehends non-elect persons, when there is not a word of any Covenant, and the terms he only saith plainly imply a Covenant. And though I deny not that the people there mentioned were a Covenant people, yet I deny any one of the terms doth imply a Covenant; for a chosen generation doth not imply a Covenant, since both electi • n and generation may be without a Covenant; and the like may be said of the other terms, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar, or purchased people: • o that in this respect the consequence may be denied. Nor is the consequence good for another reason. For it is not true that all Israelites in Moses days had those titles, which I find Exod. 19▪5, 6. yet there only three of them, and those not said of all the Israelites in M • ses days, but a promise of being to God such as these titles import, upon condition they did hearken to his voice, and kept his Covenant, which was neither verified of all Israelites in Moses days, nor in after times. And therefore though those terms were applied to Christians as to Jews, yet it doth not necessarily follow that there is a Covenant in Gospel times in like latitude as under the Law, since those titles were not verified of all the Jews at any time, but of them and then only when they were obedient But I deny the minor also of Mr. Bls. argument, that the terms are applied by Peter in an equal latitude to Christians as by Moses to Jews, and assert as in my Postscri • t, sect. 10. pag. 128. that they are applied only to those who are members of the invisible Church. Whereupon Mr. Bl. speaks thus to me.
Answ. To the first question I say affirmatively, that by new born babes, v▪ 2▪ are meant only members of the invisible Ch • rch; for they are said, ch. 1.23. to be born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever ▪ Ver. 2. to be elect according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father, begotten again unto a lively hope, ver. 3. And to the 2d. that he mentions only regenerate persons, whom he persuades, though the duty is incumbent on others.
Answ. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 1 Pet. 2.3. is translated [ if ] and may seem to import doubt or uncertainty, but it may be as well translated [ seeing ] as it is 2 Thes. 1.6. and so it imports certainty that they had tasted how gracious the Lord is, without making question of it. And this reading is more apposite to their condtiion, and more suitable to the exhortation; For it is more agreeable to the nature of a motive to the duty, ver. 2. to conceive it thus, Desire the word to grow by it, since or seeing you have tasted how gracious the Lord is. 2. But if it were read [ if ] yet in such pass • ges as these [ if ] doth not import doubt, but only is as a rational particle, noting the connection between the terms, as Joh. 15.18. Ephes. 4.20, 21. And so the sense is here, If you have tasted (which he supposeth, not questioneth) then you ought to desire the milk of the word, that you may grow by it. 3. Were it the Apostle had doubt whether they had tasted how good the Lord is (which is not to be conceived, considering what he saith of them, c. 1. v. 3, 23. c. 2.2, 5. &c. ) yet this doubt might be of a more full taste, which every regenerate elect person might not have. 4. The exhortation to lay aside malice, &c. doth not intimate they were any of them whom he calls new born babes, v. 2. a chosen generation, an holy nation, v. 9. unregenerate or non-elect; for such exhortations are necessary for the most holy Saints, in whom are relics of corruption, and liableness to temptation.
3 lie. Saith Mr. Bl.
Answ. My answer to this objection was in two things. 1. That terms appli • d to Christians in the New Testament with allusion to passages in the Old, yet are not always to be applied to Christians in the same latitude they were to Jews. 2. That in that place such a calling is meant as is from darkness to his marvelous light by his virtues or powers ; which therefore deserve to be shown forth, and which they do show forth that are thus called. And both these I confirmed from Rom. 9.24, 25, 26. which is manifestly said of them who were called v. 23. vessels of mercy ; Nor is this a denomination a parte praestantiori, for it is expressly said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were the same whom he called vessels of mercy. And the same place of Hos. 2.23. is alluded to in Rom. 9.25. and 1 Pet. 2.10. and can be understood of no other then the elect. And therefore if the places Hos. 1.10. Hos. 2.23. Deut. 32.21. should be understood (which I grant not) of any other then the elect or members of the invisible Church; yet 1 Pet. 2.10. can be understood of no other, since no other have such a calling as is there meant, v. 9. nor any other obtain mercy as there is meant. That which Mr. Bl. replies after his flirting fashion, goes on this false insinuation, that I took it for granted, that there is no marvelous light in visible Churches, which he would refute from Matth. 4.15, 16. and that this was the force of my reason; whereas my reason did not suppose that at all, but that none are so called from darkness to light in that manner the Apostle there describes the calling, but only the elect, which is true; though there be marvelous light in visible Churches, yea, and in mere visible professors, yet none so called as Peter describes 1 Pet. 2.9. but only members of the invisible Church.
4 lie. Saith Mr. Bl.
Answ. 1. No titles so expressly noting elect persons as those 1 Pet. 2.9. are given anywhere to me • visible professors. 2. If they should be in any pl • ce given to the visible Church, yet they are to be restrained to the elect only; as when a heap of corn is so called, whic • hath much chaff • or a fie • d of corn, which hath m • ch tares; the denominatio • is from the better part, and is to be applied • s verified only of it.
5 lie. Saith Mr▪ Bl.
Answ. I do not find that in my Letter I made 1 Pet. 2. • . parallel with those Texts, Gal. 6.10. 1 Tim. 3.15. 1 Pet. 2.10. But in my Exercit▪ § 12. I do allege to • rove that onel • bel • evers may be meant by a holy Nation, as they are by a family or kindred, Ephes. 3.15. the housh • ld of faith, Gal. 6.10. the house of God, 1 • im 3.15. a people, 1 Pet. 2.10. Now saith Mr. Bl. these texts I have demonstrated to be meant of visible Churches. But he hath not demonstrated them to be meant of mere visi • le Churches, or mere visible Professors in them, who are not also of the invisible Church; and therefore I thought in my Postscript, and think still I need make no further reply. Mr. Bl. considers my arguments to prove 1 Pet. 2.9. meant of the invisible Church.
Reply. M. Bl. it seems hath such a spirit of Divination, as to foresee what I would do in a contingent thing. But thi • • olly of his I impute to his Satyrical vein▪ which makes him that he can neither relate nor answer any t • ing of mine candidly. My argument was not drawn only from the term [ peculiar people ] but also from the terms [ chosen generation, royal priesthood, an holy nation ] which with th • o • her term [ a peculiar people ] or as in the Margin of our last Translation [ a purchased people ] have been applied to the elect only by these interpreters, whose words I here set down. Beza analys. Loci oppositum membram, electorum videlicet summam excelien • tiam describit, &c. Piscat analys▪ Hortatur commemoratione duorum maximorum beneficiorum Dei, electionis ad vitam aeternam, & vocationis efficacis. Electionem indicat his verbis: vos autem estis genus electum, vocationem vero illis regale sacerdotium gens sancta, &c. Dicson. Vocantur autem regale sacerdotium quia sunt & regni Christi & sacerdotii participes, imo per Christum sacerdotes & reges constitut • vocantur, genus electum, quia Deus eos prae aliis populis sibi adoptaverat. Gens sancta, quia eos sibi dicaverat Deus in vitae puritatem. Populus in acquisitionem, quia Deus eos redemerat, & sibi in thesaurum & haeredita • em asciverat, Diodati. v. 9. A royal] that is to say, a company of Priests who are likewise Kings, Exod. 19.6. Priests to Godward, to whom believers do yield spiritual worship. v. 5. and Kings over the creatures, over which Christ their head hath given them the dominion, which they had lost in Adam, and hath made them fellows in the glory of his Kingdom, Matth. 19.28. 1 Cor. 6.2, 3. Revel. 1.6. & 2.26, 27. & 3.21. & 5.10. & 20.6. A peculiar] which he hath purchased with a price and made his, by a sove • aign title to hold them for his own people. New Annot v. 9. A chosen] that is, whom God hath effectually called out of the would, see Chap. 1.2. Deut. 7.7. Royal] that is Kings and priests, See Exod. 19.6. Revel▪ • .6. & 5.10. Kings, because of that power which they have, through Christ, over their lust, see Ph • l. 4.13. Priests, because separated to the service of God, see v. 5. Holy nation] see Exod. 19.6. & Deut. 7.6, &c. A peculiar people] or a purchased people peculiar] or a people for possession: that is, a people 〈…〉 God hath purchased to be his own. See Exod. 19.5. Deut. 4.2. & 7.6. & 26.18. Psal. 135.4. Tit. 2.14. Act. 20.28. Ephes. 1.14. 1 Thes. 5.9. Dr. John Reynold Apolog. • hes. §. 21. Nam prim • nomen populi sanctorum Dan. 7.27. ex Daniele satis clare indicat significari electos, 1 Pet. 2.9. Gentem sanctam & populum Dei peculiarem, Exo. 19.5▪ Mal. 3.17. Tit. 2.14. Eximie nuncupatos quandoquidem hic est populus cui soli regnum amplissimum in Christo, & cum Christo, ut ibidem Dan. 7.27. promissum est, ita da u • iri testantur sacrae iterae Apoc. 5.10. & 20.6. & 22.5. §. 20. ad designandum populum electum, 1 Pet▪ 2.9. qui Deo cedit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in possessionem seu peculium. By which allegations it may be perceived, 1. that the interpretation I give is the common interpretation of most learned Protestants: 2. that it is proved no by one title only but by four titles, whereof not one of them can be applied in the sense Peter useth them to any but the elect: 3. that this interpretation and application is confirmed not by one only place of Scripture, but by many: 4. that though I alleged but one place, to wit Tit. 2.14. yet being so manifestly parallel, and so clearly pregnant for my purpose it was enough, and such as I would allow the like in any adversary for good proof, though] do not take it that in all places the sense is proved by the alleging one scripture in the sense conceived, nor do I think it unnecessary to find ou • the various acceptation of words in scripture.
2. Saith Mr. Bl
Answ. These terms are given in the places cited to Israelites, yet that they are given to them as visible members, and not as a church invisible, or as I would say to the church visible of Israel, in respect of and with limitation to the elect or members of the invisible church, as a field of corn in respect of the good grain, is not proved. Yet if it were the titles 1 Pet. 2.9. spoken of Christians, cannot be verified of them but in a sense appropriate to the elect. They are no way a royal priesthood, but as priests that offer spiritual sacrifices to God, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, v. 5. which none but the elect and true believers can do; no other way royal but in that they are Kings to God, r • ign ov • r sin, Satan, &c. through Christ, which none but the elect do; a chosen generation, but by God's election to life eternal; a holy nation, but by regeneration of the spirit; a peculiar people, but by Christ's purchas • ; which can be verified of none but true believers, and elect persons. And to Mr. Bls. demand I answer, setting apart Christ's death, I know not how Christ • ans should come to this honor which is expressed 1 Pet. 2.9.
3. Saith Mr. Bl.
Answ. Though I find Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, termed Ephes. 4.11. the gift of Christ ; yet I do not find them said to be the purchase of Christ's death as such: nor do I know how they can be truly said to be the purchase Christ's death, as is meant, 1 Pet. 2.9. Tit. 2.14. so as that every Apostle, &c. should be redeemed from iniquity, be of the people of God's possession, to show forth the virtues of God, &c. nor do I conceive to what purpose this is brought in here by Mr. Bl. except he mean that the titles 1 Pet. 2.9. are given to the visible Church in respect of the Ministers, which is so frivolous that I am unwilling to imagine it of him.
2. Saith Mr. Bl.
Answ. Men brought into a visible Church-state, are brought into a marvelous light. The seven golden candlesticks Rev. 1.20. had a marvelous light in their lamps, and yet in some of those there were only a few names, that had not defiled their garments; And this light is a mercy, the fruition of it a great mercy, Psal. 147.19, 20. Yea, it is applied by the prophet, Hos. • .23. (whence the Apostle gathers it) unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion, as is not denied by Mr. T. himself.
Reply. Where it is that I deny not that Hos. 2.23. is applied unto the mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion, I remember not, yet if I did grant it anywhere, I might understand it of saving mercy, proper to the elect, for that is mercy enjoyed in a visible Church communion.
But Mr. Bls. answer is not to the argument as by me urged; For I did not form it thus, they who have marvelous light, who have obtained a great mercy are elect: But thus; they who are called by God's power or virtue, which therefore they are to show forth, out of darkness, into his marvelous light, which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy, are the elect, which I confirmed from Rom. 9.23, 24, 25. where the same place of Hos. 2.23. is alleged and applied only to the elect. But these things are said of those 1 Pet. 2.9. Ergo. Which argument is confirmed by the words of Piscator above cited, and of Beza in the place cited, where he saith, Simulque ne quis ambigat sit electus necne revocat nos Apostolus ad vocationem efficacem, ex qua aeternum illud alioqui occultissimum electionis nostrae decretum certo intelligamu • , idque ex una Dei gratuit • eligentis & vocantis misere • ordia. The new Annot▪ praises] or virtues. That is, that we might glorify God in our conversations, thereby showing forth the abundant mercy and great power of God in calling us. Isa. 8.13. Darkness] that is ignorance, ch. 1.14. whereby is meant our sinful and miserable estate by nature, under which men are kept, through ignorance of the Gospel, Eph. 4▪ 18. & 5.8. Col. 1▪13. His marvelous] hereby is meant our estate of grace, through the effectual calling of God by the knowledge of the truth. See 2 Cor. 4.6. Acts 13.47. & 26.18. called marvelous, because of the great mystery of godliness, which is revealed in the Gospel; and called his, because God revealeth it. Dr. John Reynold Apol. thes· § 15. Neque soluni e tenebris in admirabi • em Dei lucem vocati, 1 Pet. 2.9. sed & electi, 1 Pet. 1.2. nuncupantur, atque genus electum, 1 Pet. 2▪9. Now though mere visible Church-members may have marvelous light, and obtain great mercy, yet they cannot be said to be thus called, to be a people of God, and to obtain mercy, as Peter there describes.
3. Saith Mr. Bl.
Reply. It is true some • imes they are termed believers, who are mere visible professors, but here the believers are such as to whom Christ is precious, and are contradistinguished to them that were disobedient and stumbled • t the word, unto which also they were appointed (which Mr. Bl. did ill to leave out) which shows they were reprobates appointed to perish, and consequently the contradistinguished believers are such as are saved, which cannot be said of them that ma • e shipwreck of the faith, or Simon Magus. Which is confirmed from v. 9, 10. which Mr. Bl. confesseth is understood of the same men, v. 3. and under the same notion a • these, v. 9. the Apostle brings his speech to no full period till v. 11. which reasons are confirmed by the note of Diodat • on 1 Pet. 2.7. It is that precious thing, namely, that precious foundation whereof Isaiah speaks, which the text leads to, and is verified only of the elect, to whom alone Christ i • the precious foundation. And the other by the note of Beza on v. 8. Preterea particula 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 adjuncta & quod mox subjicit, vos autem genu • electum nonne manifestam antithesin ostendit rosorum ad d • cus & ad d • deeus conditorum, sicut credentes & immorigeros ante opposuerat? Nor is what is said, that they disallowed Christ, v. 7. anything against this▪ that they that believed, v 7. were true believers and elect, anymore then it follows all that are mere visible professors are termed believers ordained to eternal life, Acts 13.48. because they are contradistinguished to those who re • ected the word of God, and judged themselves unworthy of eternal life, v. 46▪
4. Saith Mr. Bl.
Repl. Mr. T. his confidences are strengthened by Mr. Bls. slight answers to his arguments. His argument was, They who are said to be built as living sto • es on Christ the living stone, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, they are true believers and elect persons. But such are those v. 5. who are termed a holy nation, v. 9. Ergo. The major is proved from this, that these things can agree to no other; the minor from Mr. Bls. own words cited be • ore, that they are the same, v. 3. & 9. the Apostle not bringing his speech to a full period till v. 11. Thus Dr. John Reynold, the •• 4. § 24. ap • lies this passage only to the elect. And Mr. John Geree, Vindic. Vind. calls it a misapplication of 1 Pet 2.5. to the visible Kingdom, which expressly note the spiritual house, ch. 5. pag. 20, New Annot. on v. 5. lively stones] that is, as having life from him. See v. 4. Diodati annot. on 1 Pet. 2.5. Lively stones] namely participating of that foresaid life of Christ; and therefore opposite to the dead stones of the material temple. Are built up] or be ye built up. An holy priesthood] that is to say, a multitude and company of priests. By Jesus] whose perfect righteousness and intercession gaineth all God's grace to believers and to their works. Now what saith Mr. Bl to this? He neither denies major nor minor ; But tells us, that those words, to whom coming as unto a living-stone, if they had been cited would wholly spoil the argument, and carry it on the other hand ; which is very strange to me, who find those words thus intepreted by the new • nnot. v. 4. Comming] that is by faith▪ See Joh. 6.35. & 5.43, 44, 45. Heb. 10.22. By Diodati, v. 4. To whom] that is to say, being united to the Lord Jesus, and made his members by a lively faith, that they should prove that the titles 1 Pet 2.5. are given to mere visib • e Church members, as i • any mere visible Church-member did come to Christ as a living stone by a lively faith, and were a living stone, built up a spiritual house, &c. But let's view Mr. Ils reasons. 1. The Apostle shows them the way, and points out the condition called for; which being done, they are then built as living stones. But 1. it is plain that the Apostle speaks of them as built up already, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ye are built up, as our translation best reads it, not as of a thing to be done: and this is confirmed in that v 2. they are said to • e new born babes, ver. 3. to have tasted how gracious the Lord is, ch. 1.22. to have purified their souls, v. 23. to be born again. And for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it may be as well read unto whom being come, as unto whom coming. And so Piscal. in anal. loci. Argumentorum unum est a pari, videl a vocationis initio, quod significat qu • m ait, eos jam ad Dominum accessisse, id est fide eum recepisse, atque it a super eum adificari caepisse, and therefore notes more then the way and condition called for, even the thing already begun. 2. But had the Apostle shown only the way and coodition called for, what had this been to prove that the titles, v. 5. are given to mere visible Church members? Sure nothing at all; for were they come, or coming, or to come, their coming must have been by faith, and they had not been living stones, built up a spiritual house, nor a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, without a lively faith and election: And therefore neither Mr. Ils. concei • being granted, i • it proved that any oth • r then elect and true believers are meant 1 Pet. 2. • . 2. Saith Mr. Bl. And this implies that it was so with some, who did their duty and were happy, but not with others who neglected. But 1. how those words, unto whom coming as unto a living stone, implies the neglect of duty, I am yet to learn: If they did note a condition, yet they could imply only a possibility of neglect, not that some did neglect. 2. If some did neglect, yet this is nothing to prove that ver. 5. which is said only of those that did come and so were happy, the titles are given to mere visible professors. The rest of the Chapter is to vindicate himself from what I said, that I ha • dly believe any approved Writer joins with him in his interpretation. To which he saith, 1. It is not like my confidence, who dare affront the body of protestant Divines 〈◊〉 Tenants that ex professo they have handled against the Papists. Answ. That I do so is not shown; that I dare do so when I have truth on my side, is no vice. If Mr. Bls. reasons had been good, his singularity had not been culpable. 2. He would insinuate that in my interpretation I follow Escius and Gerhard, whom I neither have, nor ever made use of about this text. 3. That he hath Mr. Ball, whose book I now have not, and his words cited by Mr. Bl. seem not to speak anything of 1 Pet. 2.9.10. 4. That A Lapide, is wholly for him, to whom he saith I use to be beholding. But I think the words of A Lapide cited by him, are not clear for him; nor do I use to be beholding to A Lapide, he being an Author I have not, nor do I remember that I have made use of him but in the first part of the Review, § 22. only about 1 Cor. 7, 14. 5. That Gerhard mentions others that understand 1 Pet. 2.9. of common and general ele •• ion. But whether approved Writers or not, he doth not say, so that my words stand good, notwithstanding Mr. Bls. vindication of himself, his injurious insinuations of me, and his futile arguments and answers about 1 Pet. 2.9.
Mr. Bl. ch. 28. proceeds in proving.