The Covenant of God Entered with Mankind, Chapter 54
CHAP. LIV.
Reaſons evincing the Birth-priviledge and Covenant-holineſse of the iſſue of Beleevers.
HAving already ſo largely inſiſted upon by Scripture proofs, that children are in covenant with parents, and that priviledges of Ordinances (which neceſſarily imply a covenant) do deſcend to poſterity, I ſhall lay down certain grounds; ſome of them making way towards,Covenant-intereſt is of the nature of thoſe things that deſcend from parent to child. and others neceſſarily inferring of themſelves the concluſion.
Firſt, This is of the nature of thoſe things which deſcend from Parent to childe, from Anceſtors to Poſterity, which is in their power to convey to their iſſue. There are thoſe things indeed which are perſonally inherent in men, and proper to them, ſo that they cannot convey them to their iſſue; there is no deriving of them to others by ſucceſſion. As, 1. Individual accidents of the body, wounds, ſcarres, or comelineſſe of feature, theſe are ſo in the Parent, that they are not conveyed to their children. 2. Habits, or proper gifts; whether acquired by pains, or infuſed. The ſon of a learned man inherits not his fathers gifts; The ſon of an Artificer is no ſuch Artiſt; The ſon of a Prophet hath not by vertue of birth the gift of prophecy; nor is the ſon of a regenerate man endowed with ſaving grace for that reaſon.
There are on the contrary thoſe things that paſſe from Parent to childe, which the Parent by nature or ſpecial priviledge hath power to convey. As, 1. The eſſential or integral part of a Species, with the natural properties that do accompany it; ſo one brute beaſt brings forth another, one brid brings for another, and man brings forth one of mankind. 2. The priviledges or burdens, which in Family or Nation are hereditary, they are conveyed from Parents to Poſterity, from Anceſtors to their iſſue; As is the Father, ſo is the child, as reſpecting theſe particulars. This none have queſtioned, and theſe things in hand being of the ſame nature, it is a faire propable ground of it ſelf (if evidence to the contrary from Scripture be not cleare) that they are thus ſtill tranſmitted.Like priviledges do deſcend in Kingdomes, Common-weales, Cities, &c.
Secondly, It is ſo in Kingdomes, Common-wealths, Cities, in Corporations, Families; The ſon of a Noble man is Noble, of a Free-man, is Free, Acts 22. 28. As the ſonne of a bond-man (where by the Law of Nations they are bond men) is a bond-man likewiſe, Exod. 21. 4. Now we know that in Scripture the Church of God is frequently ſtiled by theſe names; By the moſt honourable of them, Mat. 8. 11, 12. Mat. 21. 43. Epheſ. 2. 19. Hebrewes 12. 22. Epheſians 3. 15. to let us underſtand, that as Cities, Kingdomes, Families, have their priviledges; ſo the people of God in covenant have theirs …ikewiſe.
But we are told, Object. You do very carnally imagine the Church of God to be like civil Corporations, as if perſons were admitted to it by birth; whereas in this all is done by free Election of grace, and according to Gods appointment; nor is God tied, or doth tie himſelf in the erecting and propagating his Church, to any ſuch carnal reſpects as deſcent from men: Chriſtianity is no mans birth-right.Sol.
Proteſtant Divines are taken up by the Jeſuites in the ſelf ſame way for this very thing. A Lapide on 1 Cor. 7. 14. ſaith; aHinc Calvinus & Beza ſuum dogma de traduce juſtitia hauſerunt, docéntque fidelium fi…ios propriè eſſe ſanctos & ſine Baptiſme ſalvari quia hoc ipſo quo fidelium ſunt filii, cenſentur eſſe in Eccleſia nati juxta foedus divinum, Ero Deus tuus & ſeminis tui, Ge. 17. 7. Quemadmodum jure civili cenſentur liberi qui ex altero parentè libero naſcuntur; ſed errant,Hence Calvin and Beza have drawn their opinion of a birth-righteouſneſſe, and ſay, that the children of Beleevers are holy, and ſaved without Baptiſme; becauſe on this account that they are Beleevers children, they are reputed to be born in the Church, within that Divine covenant; I will be thy God, and the God of thy ſeed, Gen. 17. 7. As children in the civil Law are accounted free, whoſe parents are either of them free; but (ſaith he) they are deceived, and gives his reaſon; The Church is not a civil Common-wealth, but ſupernatural; and there is no man born a Chriſtian, but ſpiritually new borne, and is made holy; not civilly, but really, by faith, hope and charity infuſed into the ſoul. So Stapleton on the ſame words in his Antidotum, (applying the Spiritual Antidote againſt Calvins Carnal Poyſon,) ſaith▪ bFoederis inter Deum & Abraham initi participes ſint, ſive Judaei ab eo carnaliter oriundi, ſive Chriſtianorum parentum liberi: carnalis generatio nihil facit.That Jewes carnally deſcended from Abraham or the children of Chriſtians may be made partakers of the Covenant entered of God with Abraham: Birth according to the fleſh does nothing. So alſo Bellarmine ſpeaking of the covenant with Abraham, ſaith; cAd nos deſcendit non per carnalem generationem parentum, ſed per ſpiritualem regenerationem Chriſti.It deſcends to us, not by carnal, but ſpiritual generation; So that theſe men have ſucked the ſpiritual meaning from the Jeſuites, and Maſter Marſhal holds to the carnal imaginations of Proteſtant Reformers. They produce many Texts of Scripture, where this Birth-priviledge in their thoughts is evidently ſet forth, Jeſuites contradict it, and upon this account it is a carnal imagination to conceive it.
The Apoſtle knew not (ſaith one) that God had ſo by promiſe, Object. or other engagement bound himſelf; but he was free as he ſaid to Moſes after the promiſe made to Abraham, to have mercy on whom he would, Rom. 9. 15.
If this be meant of any engagement of God to confer ſaving graces,Sol. or habitual qualifications on the natural ſeed of Beleevers, the words then carry reaſon with them. But neither he nor his great friends will learn, to diſtinguiſh between Gods conditional covenant (contained in priviledges of Ordinances) and habitual ſaving graces, otherwiſe they know from Moſes, that God exerciſed this freedome in making choiſe of Iſrael above all Nations, and that the Apoſtle knew, and in the ſame Chapter lets us know, Rom. 9. 4. that to them pertained the covenants, and that this was their prerogative for Birth-priviledge, Rom. 3. 1. We ſay the ſon of a Free-man is Free, the ſon of a Noble-man is Noble; we never ſaid that the ſon of a Learned-man is Learned; we ſay that the ſon of a Chriſtian is a Chriſtian, as to intereſt in Ordinances; We never ſaid that the ſon of a Regenerate man is Regenerate.
It is further urged, Object. If this were true that the covenant of Grace is a birth-right-priviledge, then the children of Beleevers are children of Grace by nature; for that which is a birth-right-priviledge, is a priviledge by nature. And if Chriſtianity is hereditary, that as the child of a Nobleman is Noble, the child of a Free-man is Free, the child of a Turk is a Turk, of a Jew a Jew, the child of a Chriſtian is a Chriſtian, Then Chriſtians are born Chriſtians, and not made Chriſtians, and how are they then children of wrath by nature; which whether it may not advantage the Pelagians, and deniers of Original ſinne; it concernes thoſe that uſe ſuch ſpeeches to conſider.
To this I anſwer.Sol. It concernes thoſe that preſſe theſe objections, to ſee how Chamier, Paraeus and other Proteſtant Writers anſwer them, when they are in their very words urged by Jeſuites. If they can reconcile Galat. 2. 15. with Epheſ. 2. 3. then they have an anſwer. The Apoſtle was by birth of the people of God in covenant, and yet by nature a childe of wrath.
It is further ſaid, Object. To conceive that it is in Gods Churches as in other Kingdomes, and after the Lawes of Nations, is a ſeminary of dangerous ſuperstitions and errours.
It is well that they have learned an Artifice from theſeSol. ſuperſtition-hating Jeſuites, to keep out the inlet of ſuperſtition among us: if there were no parallel held betwixt the Church of God and other Kingdomes, after the manner of the Law of Nations, but ſuch that are Seminaries of ſuperſtition; they may do well to acquaint us how it comes to paſſe, that the Curch in Scripture hath the name of a City, Family, Kingdome? Similitudes ever carry ſome reſemblance. If this were the alone ground, on which the Birth-priviledge of Chriſtians were bottomed, they had ſaid ſomething; but being only an illuſtration of it, and nothing more, they are over laviſh in their cenſure. Similitudes indeed may be over-ſtretched beyond their reach, and if they had laid down rules to declare where the Similitude holds, and where it holds not (as I have done in the Birth-priviledge) and made it appear that it holds not in that for which I produce it, they had ſaid ſomewhat to the purpoſe; Read Mal. 1. 6, 8, 14. and tell me whether there be any ground laid for dangerous ſuperſtitions.Birth-intereſt deſcends in all other Religions
Thirdly, It is ſo in all other Religions, they keep up their priviledge of intereſt in the worſhip of their Anceſtors. The childe of a Turke is a Turke, the childe of a Pagan is a Pagan, the child of a Jew is a Jew: And it is the Apoſtles Argument in like caſe reſpective to Eccleſiaſtical communion, that becauſe Sacramental communion rendered them one Eccleſiaſtical body with Chriſtians; ſo communion in worſhip will make one body with thoſe of other Religions, 1 Cor. 10. 17, 18, 19. See Paraeus on the words, and Cudworths True notion of the Lords Supper. There are common principles that are the ſame in all Religions, and we muſt beleeve them to hold, unleſſe Scripture hold forth a difference.God ownes childre… borne in the Church as his ſervants, and as his children.
Fourthly, God ownes children born in the Church as by birth his, his ſervants, Levit. 25. 39, 40, 41, 42. If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be ſold unto thee, thou ſhalt not compel him to ſerve as a bond-ſervant, but as an hired ſervant, and as a ſojourner he ſhall be with thee, and ſhall ſerve thee unto the year of Jubile. And then ſhall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him; and ſhall return unto his own family, and unto the poſſeſſion of his fathers ſhall he returne; For they are my ſervants. Root and Branch, Parent and childe are ſervants of God; As they were the ſervants of their Maſter; when they could do them actually no ſervice, by reaſon of their relation to them; ſo they are the ſervants of God on the ſame account. And as he owns them as his ſervants, ſo alſo he ownes them as by birth his children, Ezek. 16. 20, 21. Moreover, thou haſt taken thy ſonnes and thy daughters, whom thou haſt borne unto me, and theſe haſt thou ſacrificed unto them to be devoured; Is this of thy Whoredomes a ſmall matter, That thou haſt ſlain my children, and delivered them to cauſe them to paſſe through the fire for them? If there were no Birth-priviledge, how had God this property in Infants? and this David pleads, Pſ. 116. 16. O Lord, I am thy ſervant, truly I am thy ſervant, and the ſon of thy hand-maid; becauſe he was borne in Gods houſe, and was a childe of a ſervant of his; he pleads his intereſt.
Fifthly,Parent and childe reſpective to Church-intereſt, are not in an oppoſite condition. If the child be not in covenant, the parent and childe are heterogeneal, and reſpective to Church-relation in the moſt oppoſite condition: the Parent in the Kingdom of God by vertue of the faith that he profeſſes: the childe in the Kingdome of Satan by reaſon of his non-intereſt in the Promiſe, and want of title to Covenant-relation. But Scripture makes them ſtill as one, Jewes children are Jewes by nature, Gentiles children are ſinners, that is, Gentiles by nature. The Root being holy, the Branches are holy; Parents not ſanctified, children are unclean; but Parents being ſanctified, they are holy.
Sixthly,No preſident in Scripture, of a believing Parent bringing up a childe for covenant and not in covenant. If children be not taken into Covenant with their parents, then the moſt godly of Parents bring up children; not in covenant, but for a covenant; not in any preſent intereſt of relation to God, but at beſt in an hopeful expectation of it. They bring not forth children to God, but at beſt they have their deſires to traine them for ſuch a future viſible relation; But there is no ſuch example in all Scripture of a parent in covenant, training up the ſeed of their bodies for a covenant. No one in all New Teſtament-Scripture, ever bred up a childe in yeares to baptize him, no more than in Old Teſtament-Scriptures they bred their children to circumciſe them; we read of many baptized in years, but we read of none borne of Chriſtian parents, kept till yeares of diſcretion to be baptized.—
Seventhly,Infants out of covenant according to Scripture-grounds are without hope of ſalvation. If children be not received into covenant with their parents, but ſtand without covenant, and in no right of Church-memberſhip, then they are without any Scripture-ground of hope of ſalvation, then they are as all others that are out of covenant; without Chriſt, without God, without hope. And becauſe ſome have riſen up againſt this Argument with high clamours, though hitherto with feeble, or rather no reaſons, I ſhall ſomewhat more enlarge my ſelf in confirmation of it. That which the prime authours of, and chiefeſt ſticklers for, the non-federation of infants freely confeſſe, which the general conſent of their adverſaries (Proteſtant Writers) unanimouſly upon Scripture grounds conclude, that the preſent Patrons can maintain with nothing but clamours, and ſuch reaſons (improved to the higheſt) which will equally conclude the hopes of the greateſt Drunkards, Idolaters, Adulterers, Heathens; that muſt be taken for an Argument of force, and a reaſon concluſive this cannot be denyed; But ſo it is here, as I ſhall make good in ſeveral particulars.
1. Thoſe of the Church of Rome, Jeſuites our leading adverſaries confeſſe it.that have ſtood up againſt Infants covenant-holineſſe, do confeſſe that all infants going out of the world as they came into the world, in that eſtate periſh, and ſo have provided a chamber in hell, which they call by the name of Limbus Infantum, and now ſince their Limbus Patrum by Chriſts death is made empty by the fetching out all that were there in expectation of him, and the number of infants thus dying increaſing, it is ſaid by ſome that theſe two are laid together: howſoever it falls out with theſe places about which we have no reaſon to buſie our ſelves, this poſition that infants thus dying without any covenant, or Church-intereſt, do periſh, followes as directly from their principles as any concluſion from its premiſes.
2. Proteſtant Divines who aſſert Infant-ſalvation,Proteſtant Divines cannot avoid it. and beleeve no ſuch diviſion of hell into chambers, and have other thoughts of the condition of Infants, ſtill bring this intereſt of theirs in the covenant of God as their ground, (not prying into the ſecrets of Election, nor urging prerogative above that which is written) the covenant of God, Gen. 17. 7. confirmed by the New Teſtament-Scriptures before mentioned. They very well know, that in caſe Papiſts can wreſt this covenant-intereſt of infants from them, they conclude according to Scripture-ground their damnation: Luke tells us, there were daily added to the Church ſuch as ſhould be ſaved, namely to the Church viſible, as the Text is clear, Acts 2. 47. Now if they ſtand not admitible into the Church, they ſtand without hope of ſalvation; ſee how the Apoſtle joynes theſe together, Epheſ. 2. 12. Without Chriſt, being aliens from the Common-wealth of Iſrael, and ſtrangers from the Covenants of Promiſe, having no hope, and without God in the world. If any can conclude againſt the intereſt of any in the Common-wealth of Iſrael, that is, the Church of God, and the covenants of promiſe (which thoſe do that will have them to be no Church-members, nor to be taken into covenant with Parents) they ſadly doome them to be without Chriſt, without God, without Hope. Thoſe that diſclaime Zuinglius his opinion, that Hercules, Socrates, Ariſtides, Numa, and ſuch like Heathens are now in heaven; would be deſired to ſhew how they caſt thoſe out, upon that account as Heathens, and take in infants as great ſtrangers (according to them) to any Church-intereſt. Infants want not ſin for condemnation; our firſt Original eſtate being a corrupt eſtate, and by nature children of wrath, and putting them out of covenant, they can finde no Scripture-way to entitle them to Chriſt for redemption; They ſeeme to conceive other hopes of the ſalvation of infants of Heathens, that upon the ſame ground they may be charitable to the infants of Chriſtians, that with them are in the ſame poſture with Heathens, when they ſpeak of Hercules and other Heathens as before; yet ſpeaking of the infants of Heathens, they ſay, It is bad to ſay, that God doth not ſave ſome of the infants of Indians pro bene placito, according to his good pleaſure. For any warrant we can finde in Scripture, it is as bad to ſay it of the parent as of the childe. The Scriptures leave the whole of the Family, root and branch under the fury and wrath of God▪ Jeremiah 10. 25. Pſal. 79. 6.Our preſent adverſaries inſtead of reaſons oppoſe onelyonly comers againſt it.
3. The preſent Patrons of this non-federation of infants, can maintaine their ſalvation with nothing but clamours, and ſuch reaſons improved to the higheſt, that equally conclude the ſalvation of the greateſt drunkards, adulterers, idolaters, Heathens; I ſhall now purpoſely for peace ſake paſſe by thoſe high clamors and bitter invectives that we meet with on this occaſion, and come to take notice of the reaſons produced, to exempt infants from this doom of condemnation, and all that I can find is one and the ſame thing to fly for refuge to prerogative; This is my judgement (ſaith one) that God will have us to ſuſpend our judgment of this matter, and Reſt on the Apoſtles determination, Rom. 9. 18. For ſatisfaction of which I need to adde no more than what I have ſaid, page 15. of my Anſwer, ſeeing it reſts, & not one word yet replied to it. The Text of Scripture (which we have over and over) is, that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, telling his adverſary, that it is bad to ſay that God doth not ſave pro bene placito, which no adverſary of his will deny, But God is pleaſed in his Word to make known the way of the diſpenſation of his mercy, otherwiſe the vileſt perſon againſt whom in our miniſterial way, we denounce Gods judgments▪ may reply that his hope of ſalvation is as good as the beſt, for God ſaves ex bene placito, and hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and the beſt ſoul, in a caſe of diſertion, will take off all his applications of comfort, with the cloſe of that Scripture, And whom he will he hardeneth, Rom. 9. 18. And ſo the Jews even in their rejection, (of which the Apoſtle ſpeaks ſo largely,) being cut off by unbelief, might have pleaded their hope of ſalvation, as well as in a beleeving condition; we muſt therefore not look to the ſecret Will of God, of which no reaſon can be given, but his good pleaſure; but into his revealed Will, where he is pleaſed to make known the diſpenſation of this will and good pleaſure of his, and ſo we ſhall learn not to carry our hopes beyond his promiſe. To that Text of the Apoſtle, Eph… …. 12. In which all out of Covenant are concluded to be with …, It is ſaid, Though the Gentiles were without hope, Eph… …. 12. in reſpect of the body of them, yet now and then, God called ſome, as Rahab, out of the viſible Church, and therefore we may not determine univerſally that out of the viſible Church there is no ſalvation at all. But when Rahab was thus called ſhe was no more a Gentile, as appears, Epheſ. 2. 11. as the Epheſians had been, but in preſent were no Gentiles, ſo alſo it was with her, neither ſhe, nor they, were ſaved out of the Church; but brought into the Church for ſalvation.