Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 44

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 44

p. 314SECT. XLIV. Animadversions on the ninth Section of the same Chapter, in which the Covenant-interest externall and Ecclesiastical of infants of inchurched 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 onelyonly to believers, but also to their naturall 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 wil 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 Zuinglius. 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 initiall seal, is covenant-interest from the covenant of grace, which is a mistake, as I have often shewed. 2. That such externall covenant interest of grown persons is Gospel without Scripture, which mentions onelyonly 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 inchurched by such a covenant as the Scripture mentions not. 4. He annexeth the covenant interest he speakes of to this Church-covenant as well as to the covenant of grace without any warrant but his own conceit, nor shewes how far it is annexed to the one with or without the other, 5. He asserts the covenant interest at least externall and Ecclesiasticall p. 315of infants of inchurched 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 sheweth it was a Gospel-promise like that Heb. 8.10, 11, 12.

Ans. This is enough to shew the impertinency of this text to prove the meer externall Ecclesiasticall interest of infants of inchurched believers. For it contains that promise of inward grace, which Mr. B. saith, belongs onelyonly 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 usuall in mentioning Abrahams 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 onelyonly such as were elect, nor at all times, but a speciall 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 shew 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 alleaging that Gods lawes 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 Christs resurrection, as there the words stand, 1. from Deu. 30.10. where the commandment mentioned v. 11. is said expresly to be [Gods 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. foreign, Hebr. foreign baddabar, quo vocabulo Moses intelligit legem quam Dominus voce 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. alledging the words Psalm. 19.4. concerning the preaching the Gospel in all the world, p. 316which 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 wel 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 Commandement 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 shew 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 wel as God and them the parents or rulers stipulating therein in behalf of themselves and Chidren (or rather in the behalfe 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, shew 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, that the Covenant-interest (external as he cals it) of inchurched stipulating parents children is Gospel, or that the Apostles preached this doctrine, or that believers are to eye the covenant in such a latitude as to their children with them by faith, or that the essentials of the Covenant of grace in the latitude of the extent thereof to covenant parents with their children held forth in the old Testament was delivered and held forth as valid to the faith of the Saints in the new and after Christs incarnation. Nor doth Peter propound the word of true faith in such a latitude as with reference to their children, (in Mr. C's sence) Acts. 2.38, 39. And though Paul hold forth Rom. 5.14, 15. the abounding of Christs grace (to them that are Christs) in the gift of righteousness, yet that any such thing as external Ecclesiastical covenant interest to the natural seed of believers is held forth Rom. 5.14, 15. is Mr. C's, palpable dotage. And how Acts. 2.38, 39. Rom. 11.16, 17, 18, 19. 1 Cor. 7, 14. are mistaken is shewed in the first part of this Review and in this third part. But Mr. C. fa…ls to disputing thus, That which believers, as such, have, do, and ought to believe as a branch of the p. 317Covenant of grace, that is Gospel; but this is of that in nature, ergo. The major needs no proof: the former text also clearing the same: the major de jure is evident: they ought to believe the whole Covenant made with them, as is evident, faith must be as large as the object, the Covenant is the word of faith. And so he proceedes in more words.

Whereunto I answer, I grant his major, but Mr. C. seems not to heed his own Syllogism. For he tels 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 inchurched 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 fals 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 inchurched 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 avowes it as a constant and certain thing. But instead thereof he fals to Gen. 17.7. and tels 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 Gods 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 shews not, nor can shew, there being no mans seed: but Abrahams 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 shal 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 stuffe.

Whence (saith he) God, when to speak in reference to the Church-seed as well as to the choise elect-seed of Isaac's line in which the visible, and not meerly the invisible Church was to be continued, he saith, he will establish his Covenant with Isaac, not with Ishmael, Ishmael was Abrahams seed too, and therefore externally in the Covenant, and therefore sealed; but God knowing that Ishmael would reject this, he warneth Abraham of it a little before that it might not trouble him afterwards: It is not to be with him in his generations for that cause Gen. 17.8▪ compared with Gen. 21.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. but with Isaac in his generations; God not opposing therein Isaac to his Church-seed, who by rejecting the Covenant will and did love, he and his to be cast out.

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? p. 318He makes a difference between Gods speech of Ishmael and Isaac, that God saith he will establish his Covenant with Isaac not wi…h Ishmael, it was not to be with him in his generations, who was to be cast out: all which I grant true, and thence infer, that God never made his Covenant with, to, or for Ishmael, and yet he was to be circumcised, and therefore the initial seal (as it is called) was given to him to whom the Covenant belonged not. But Mr. C. using this blind index [whence] leaves us to ghess, what he drives at. [whence] importes it is from somewhat before that God said this of Ishmael, but that before was that God takes in parents generating and children begotten. But me thinks it is from the contrary (as the Apostle conceived Rom. 9.6, 7, 8, 9.) that God speaks this of Ishmael, who was Abrahams seed, and yet not taken into the Covenant, who yet should be taken in, if yet Mr. C's. principles were good, that the Covenant was made to Abraham and his seed in their generations. And how Mr. C. reckons Ishmaels as not Abrahams Church-seed I know not, nor do I understand how Ishmaels posterity should be cut off from external right to the Covenant he being a Church member according to Mr. C's dictates.

Mr. C. then tels 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 inchurched believers have external Ecclesiastical covenant-interest. If it did, it may as well infer infants of inchurched 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 Abrahams seed but by regeneration, and so to be Abrahams seed in their generations applied to Abrahams spiritual or Church-seed among the Gentiles is all one as to be Abrahams 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 wel 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 believ…r the wife an infidel. But saith Mr C. it was usually otherwise, and God speaks of things as they usually prove: extraordinary occurrences cross not such a rule. To which I say, if the prophecy were as Mr. C. would, that it should be Gospel that God will be a God of children with parents, because he will be god of all the families of the earth, than it must be true of the children of all and every of the families of the earth which recieve the Gospel. Nor are prophecies to be expounded at, if they foretold onelyonly contingents what may be, and what may not be, but what shall certainly be▪ p. 319nor can ther be a rule, much less Gospel, made of that which is uncertain, somtimes it is somtimes it is not, a rule being, as they say in logick, a determinate & known thing ▪ nor is it true that the occurrent of the families being divided in religion was extraordinary. For our Lord Christ speaks of it rather as ordinary & commonly to be expected Matth. 10.34 35, 36. But Mr. C. would have i… a rule from Acts. 11.14. Acts. 16 31. Luke. 19 9. To this may be answered 1 that three instances mak not up an induction of particulars whence a rule may be made. 2. The first instance is not meant of infants, for none are th…re said to be saved but those that heard the words which Peter spake. The next includes not infants. For the very next v 32. shews that by the house were meant those to whom the word of the Lord was spoken. Nor is there any intimation of an infant meant Luke. 19 9. And it is certain that none of the texts speaks of that which they are produced for, a bare external interest: for they expresly speak of salvation, and therefore if they prove it to be a rule that parents and children are joint Covenanters, or are taken in together they will prove they are saved together, which Mr. C. I suppose will not assert. But some other answers are in my Examen which I must vindicate with these. I had said Examen part. 78 there is a necessity to make foreign a restrinctive particle and to expound this house Luke 19.9. of Zach…us his family only in reference to his person. Against this Mr. C. speaks thus.

Nor by salvation come to his house, is meant the comming of salvation to himselfe: as if he and his house were all one: nor do I know any parallel Scripture speaking in such language, that when the scope and intent is to mention the comming of such or such a mercy to such a person, that phrase is used to denote the same; that such or such a mercy is come to his house. what need such a circumlocution? if so intended, the word might more plainly have been set down, this day is salvation come to this publican, this person, this man or the like, in as much as he also is become a son of Abraham. And what though the Greek word be used in Acts 2.45. and 4.35. for secundum according as, yet not for quatenus, or in quantum: forasmuch as the text and sense thereof are cleare, that it noteth proportion of such administration, not meerly the cause or reason thereof. Or if it be supposed to imply the cause or reason thereof its evident it noteth the proportion also. they gave to every one as, or according as they needed scil: proportionably to their need: it being regular as to give to the needy, so to give them according to the measure of their present necessity. But how that sense will here be fitly applicable I see not, to say that salvation is come to his house or to him according as he is a Believer, but rather as our translators render it, it's to be taken as a reason of the former, salvation is come to this house, forasmuch as he is a son of Abraham.

Answ. By restraining the salvation come to Zacheus his house to his person, I do not make Zacheus and his house all one; but salvation is come to his house that is, to this place, inasmuch, or in that Zacheus is also become a Son of Abraham. But whereas Mr. C. thinks no Scripture using such language, I will use Grotius his words shewing the contrary even in Luke, because they are full to answer this passage of Mr. C. Annot. in Luc. 19.9. foreign, Synecdoche. Domus enim pro Patre familias dicitur: ita supra. 10.5. foreign p. 320foreign. Domum autem ideo nominâsse videtur Christus, ut ostendat rel…tam hospitii gratiam. Dixerat enim Zachaeo Christus, foreign. Quare quae ad hunc locum afferri solent de beneficiis Dei in familiam pii Patris familias, quanquam vera sunt rectè accepta, tamen huc pertinere non arbitror. As for what he saith that foreign doth not signifie quatenùs, he may know that Scapula puts quatenùs for the first signification of it. What I said, that foreign 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 mans 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 shew. 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 Abrahams Covenant as Mr. C. speaks (though that be true also) but a follower of Abrahams Faith) salvation is certainly annexed; nor had it been so joyous if he had not meant salvation it self: it is put out of all doubt that he means salvation it self 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. Pauls Answer is of that of which the Jaylour 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:

Nor is this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation, or the covenant and promise it self unusuall in Scripture. The salvation which Christ and his Apostles preached, and those Heb. 2.3. neglected, was not barely salvation it self, but the promises holding the same forth, this was that mercy, and riches, and salvation also which came to the Gentiles, as rejected by the Jewes, Rom. 11.11, 12, 17, 19, 30 verses compared. So Esay, 1, 6, 8, Gods salvation is his promise or covenant p. 321on which their salvation did depend, Calvin in locum. 2 Sam. 23.5. David speaking of his house or posterity, which albeit it were not so orient then, yet God had made a covenant with him, scil. in reference to his house, ordered in all things and sure; And this, scil. this covenant with me and my house, is all my salvation and all my desire, albeit he maketh my house not to grow or flourish in such a sort: this covenant then was his salvation objectivè, causaliter, or instrumentaliter.

Answ. If this sense of salvation for covenant means of salvation, or the covenant and promise it self were usuall 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 it self, he dares not avoch it to be Gospel, that all the infants of inchurched 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 Abrahams 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 it self 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 inchurched 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 convenant is termed his salvation Causaliter, or Instrumentaliter, and his desire objestivè. 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 p. 322faith may be an occasionall 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 inchurched believer, whether professing or reall, 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 poore Babes by reason of their tender age? Hath the mercfull God revealed no ordinary help for them?

Answer. It is yeilded that benefit came to the servant of the Jaylors house, Acts 16.31. but not the benefit there mentioned barely by the Jaylors 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 rejoyced, yet we exclude not infants from salvation, nor do we deny to the elect the ordinary help of the Spirit regenerating them, and Christs 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 pathetick 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 actuall 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 Jaylor 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 any thing visibly to comfort him concerning his Children, no more is the covenant of salvation, which is comensurtae with election, Rom 9.8. nor is discernable any more 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 Jaylors 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, It follows not that what is applicable to the adult persons in the house, scil. that joy of faith must exclude children from baptism whereof they were capable, no more than when it is said, Deut. 12.7. that they and their housholds were to eat before the Lord, and to rejoyce in all they put their hands to, &c. Because therefore their little children could not so actually express joy in what they put their hands unto, therefore they were none of the houshould which did eat before the Lord▪ Anabaptists would not like this arguing, which urge the joynt communion of the Jewish Children in all sorts of Church-ordinances.

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 rejoyce in all that they put their hands p. 323unto. 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 rejoyce 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 housholds 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 Lords Supper, were to eat the Passover, yet I know none of the so called Anabaptists which urge the joynt communion of the Iewish children (infants of a few dayes or months old) in all sorts of Church-ordinances.

What Mr C. saith further, Suppose a mans houshold, Men, Women and Children, all diseased and cured at the Bath, and afterwards the houshold 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 houshold 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 houshold] 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 Jaylors house: and v. 34, He rejoyced 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 shew, that by [all his, v. 33] were meant onelyonly 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 Houshold] 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 Houshold, 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 expresly instanced in, and children not withall mentioned, as Gen. 14.16. or that children are ordinary instruments to build or hold up a house in naturall, civill, 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 Iaylors house were infants, and they baptized.

Ezek. 16.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. hath been often shewed to be impertinently alledged 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 priviledge 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. that the same mercy and truth engaged to Abraham and Jacob God did both swear to other Jew fathers of families, or that there is mention of pardon of sins externally made over to them or pleaded p. 324there for that end v. 18, 19 And though I deny not that in respect of the covenant made with Iacob at Bethel Gen. 35.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. God is said there to speake with Israel in Hoseah his dayes Hos. 12.2. yet I deny there is a word that saith that external Church interest of inchurched Gentile believers infants is Gospel. Nor is there any thing 2 Sam. 23.4, 5▪ about external covenant-Church-interest, but of the peculiar promise made to David of the continuing the kingdome to his posterity, which having its full accomplishment in Christ Acts. 2.30. was indeed in that respect the covenant of grace, and was so believed both by David and all believers before Christ, that it should be done, and now by all believers that it is done. But this promise was made of Davids house only not of every particular believers, and therefore it is impertinently brought to prove that it is Gospel that to every believers house God hath made such a Covenant, or that the children of every believer have an external covenant interest with the parent. As for the instances of Eve and Lamech concerning Seth and Noah Gen. 4.25. and 5.29. ther's no mention of any Covenant, nor that these were Covenant babes, much less of a Covenant belonging to all believing parents with their children, but an acknowledgment in the former that God had appointed Eve another seed insteed of Abel whom Cain slew in respect of the preisthood say some, others in respect of propogating mankind, others because of Christ to come from him: in the other a prophesy of Noah that he should comfort them concerning their worke and toil of their hands, because of the ground which the Lord had cursed, which is concieved by some as meant of the invention of plowing▪ vide Christoph. Cartwright in locum: the new Annot. follow that sense. But were it true Eve had respect in that speech Gen. 4.25. to the promise Gen. 3.15. and that she believed God would continue the Church in Seth's posterity, and that thence came the distinctions of the sons of God and daughters of men Gen. 6.1, 2. and Lamech believed that Noah should be a root, as it were to the Church albeit that corrupt world should be destroyed: yet all this is note…ing to the point Mr. C. should prove, that it is Gospel that the children of every inchurched Gentile-believer have an externall covenant church-interest, there being in those Texts not a word of such an externall covenant Church-interest, nor of any generall promise to them, but onelyonly a mention of speeches which had their rise from particular Revelations about those persons which are there mentioned,

Psalm. 102.25, 26, 27, there's not a word of the externall Federall Church state of inchurched Gentile Church-believers. But if the Psalm were made towards the later end of the captivity of Babylon, and were the prayer of the Iews▪ as v. 13, 14, makes it probable, then it seems to be meant, as the new Annotations on Psa. 102.28, thus▪ The children of thy Servants shal continue] This is the literal (as I may call it) immortality proposed in the Law to them that fear of God, their surviving in their posterity: If of the Saints prophecying of the calling of the Gentiles, or, as some would, of the reingraffing of the Iewes, that Paraphrase of Junius may be right: …. 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 externall federall Church-interest, but continuance and establishment before God, that is, as Ainsworth notes, as much as so long as God doth dure, meaning p. 325for ever. 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 inchurched Gentile-believers to externall Church-interest.

Mr C. urgeth a second Argument to prove the federall interest of believers infants to be Gospel because from the beginning, and he begins with Gen. 3.15. to prove that it was held as Gospel, that the Species of the infants of believers in Church-estate were taken into the Verge of the Covenant of Grace; as if infants of believers were a Species, and not Individuals, or that it were denied that some infants were taken into the verge of the covenant of grace. And then he dictates without proof, that Adam and Eve were eyed by God as a seminall visible Church; whereas in that promise they were eyed either as the root of mankind; or if as a Church, more likely as the seminall invisible, than as the visible Church. He interprets The Seed of the Woman, not onelyonly of the principall Seed Christ, in, and by whom it was ratified and fulfilled, but her Church-seed also whom the same promise did comprehend. But I would know of Mr C. whether Cain were not her Church-seed, who by Mr C. his Dictates was the infant of inchurched believers. For Adam and Eve were eyed, saith Mr C. as a seminall visible Church? If so, then it is true of Cain, that he should bruize the Serpens head as Eves church-seed: which how he did, unless being of the wicked one, and slaying his brother, as is said of him, 1 John 3.12. be bruising the Serpents head, I understand not. Many Interpreters comprehend Cain under the Serpents seed; but none I have met with, comprehend him, or any reprobate, under the Womans Seed mystically understood. There are Interpreters that understand the promise, Gen. 3.15. as made to mankind in respect of the naturall Serpent, and the best of Christs destroying the works of the Divel, as John speaks, 1 Epist. 3.8. and others of the elect overcoming Satan, and treading him under their feet, Rom. 16.20. But none do I find who understand it of infants of believers externall Covenant Church-interest. Believers, it is true, are called Abrahams seed, but no where true believers, as such, are called Eves Church-seed, nor doth Eve by faith from thence thus interpret the scope of the promise, Gen. 4.25, 26. And if infants be meant by the womans seed, Gen. 3.15. in a spirituall sense of overcoming the Divel, yet no infants but elect can be meant thereby, sith no other overcome the Divell. So that it is so far from being true, that this Gospel of Infants of believers externall 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 meer figment. But there is more of this Rubbish to be removed. He tells us,

The same Doctrine is implicitly held forth, Gen. 9 in the opposition of the servile condition of Canaan, v. 25, 26. to the future Church state of Japhet, v. 27. the one accursed parent and child to servitude, so that Chams Babes as soon as born, were to be slaves: but Japhet parent & child, are prophetically voted to Church-estate in Sems tents, so that inchurched Japhets babes are actually within Sems Tents so soon as born. As God would accurse collective Canaan, Noah prophesieth that God would enlarge, or cause collective Japhet to turn into the tents of Sem; which Interpreters expound of the joyning of the Gentiles unto the visible Church. Now visible Church-estate supposeth visible Covenant-estate, as is evident.

p. 326Answ. If Mr. C. may be allowed to make Gospel of Doctrine so implicitely 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 servil 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 Japhet, whether we read it, God shall enlarge Japhet, as some, or perswade Japhet, 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 Japhet, 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 Japhet, 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 encline 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 Judaea was a part, or of the Romans subduing Carthage and poss…ssi…g Judaea: But …e it taken as a Prophecy of the Ecclesiastick 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 Gods promise in Christ by the Gospel, Ephes. 3▪6. or when the Gentiles were grafted in the stead of the Jewes 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 shewed 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 Japhet as soon as they are born. For what though it be that Canaan, and Sem, and Japhet …e all collectively taken, yet Mr. C. himself, pag. 161. hath taught us, That Speeches of the whole Body of the Jewes, 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 Japhet, comprehending every Israelite or descendent from Japhet, but a notable part. And if those of Japhet 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 perswasion, and this perswasion 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 perswaded by the Gospel to joyn 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 Abrahams family, and the legal Jerusalem p. 327and her Children even the body of the Jewes adult and infant were dis-churched, so Ecclesiastical Isaac, Abrahams Church-seed with their Children should be instated in the visible politi…al 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 Jewes or the body of Iewes or adult and infants as Mr. C. speaks: for then many Myriads of Jewes believing should be cast out: But Ierusalem that now is, notes the legal Covenant, and her children not Infants born at the City Ierusalem, 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 Ierusalem above, signifie the Gospel-Covenant, vers. 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 Abrahams Church-seed there, or any where else in Mr. C. his sense; and [Ecclesiastick Isaac] is a new Notion, and a meer 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 meer 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, Esay 65.20. the impertinency of which to this end, is shewed 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 sequele, that [if Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in their Church estate, before they can make any personall confession or profession of faith in the covenant, yet then are Abrahams 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 onelyonly the naturall children of Gentile inchurched believers, yea of Gentile visible inchurched professors of Faith, whom Mr C. in a new language of his own without Scripture, calls Abrahams 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 expresly 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 naturall children even of infants o… visible inchurched Gentile-believers, or visible professors of Faith▪ but true believers, or elect persons, who alone are members of Christ mysticall. p. 328And 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 externall 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 Christs dying for our sins, and justification by faith in him.

2. I also deny the minor [that the Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in Church-estate before they can make any personal confession or profession of faith in the Covenant, yet then are Abrahams Church-seed] Mr. C. takes upon him to prove the minor; 1. in those of Abrahams loins in the elect seed. I should think (saith he) it should not be questioned, but yet it hath by some; that Infants while Infants and till believers are not in the covenant &c. And by such other speeches of our Adversaries in this point, the covenant-right not only of the individual Infants of believers, but the Covenant estates of that species and sort of persons is wholly denyed, and so since it's evident and acknowledged that some are elected of that sort, yet it's denied that they have part in the word of Gods covenants, so that if they die in Infancy, as many of the choise seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob did &c. Yet that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied, contrary to that principle Rom▪ 9.6. But more hereof anon: but Rom. 9 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. is so clear for it I wonder any deny it. Isaac and Jacob are made precedential instances of interest not only of election, but of Gods calling unto the fellowship of his free covenant without respect either to their desire or indeavour of it personally v. 16.

Answ. There are sundry reasons which make me conceive that in this and many other passages in this argument Mr. C. aimed at my self. Mr. Robert Baillee minister of Glasgow in Scotland had in the 2. part of his Diswasive intituled 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 Iewish Infants till in their ripe years they became actuall believers. From which false criminations I have vindicated my self in the Addition to my Apology printed at London 1652. Mr. C. here tels of some who speak as if they held that Infants while Infants, and till believers are not in the covenant, that wholly deny the covenant estate of that sort of persons, though they acknowledg some of them are elected of that sort, yet it's denied they have part in the word of Gods covenant, and if they die in Infancy that ordinary means of saving efficacy in all the saved elect is denied them. I have reason to conceive that these are calumnies of others, sure I am if theyrae meant of my self they are calumnies, and so shewed in my Books before cited and in other of my writings. From which that I may stand free I further express my self distinctly thus. 1. That by [in the Covenant of grace] I mean the promise of righteousness and external life by Christ Jesus. 2. That I mean by [being in the Covenant of grace or belonging to it] the having this promise made to them by God whether Gen. 17.7. or Gen. 3.15. according to the speech of the Apostle Tit. 1.2. that God promiseth eternal life foreign before the times of the ages, that is afore any age of man was past▪ 3. that all the elect of God whether children of believers or p. 329unbelievers dying in Infancy, or at the riper age are in this covenant of grace, that is, God hath promised eternal life to them by Christ, they are given to Christ to save, are children of the promise Rom. 9.8. 4. That all these are Abrahams seed meant in the promise Gen. 17.7. though not actual believers. 5. That all these have Christs me…s and the spirits inbeing in them afore they dye as ordinary means of salvation. 6. That none but these elect persons have the said covenant of grace or promise of righteousness and life by Ch…ist made to them. 7. That no where visible prof…ssers of faith is in the Covenant of grace. 8. That the natural child of a believer, no not the naturall child of Abraham the Father of believers was or is in the covenant of grace, as their child, or barely by vertue of their faith, but onelyonly the elect of them by vertue of their election by God. 9. That these elect persons, though elected, and having the promise made to them, yet have not the things promised (if of years of understanding) till they do believe, they are not justified till then, and so are not actuall partakers of the covenant of grace, or not actually therein. 10. That no where in Scripture is the naturall child of a Gentile-believer, or a visible professor of Christian faith, termed Abrahams Seed, and the term of Abrahams Church-seed, applied to such is a novel expression, not grounded on Scripture. 11. That the formall, proper, and adequate reason why any was to be circumcised, was, not his being in the covenant made with Abraham, nor is the reason why any should be baptized, bare…ly his interest in the covenant of grace, but the command of God, in the one, appointing males of eight dayes old of Abraahms house, and Proselytes thereto to be circumcised; in the other, discip…es by their own profession of fai…h in Ch…ist to be baptized. 12. That the use of the terms, Being in the outward Covenant, externall covenant-interest of Infants, and such like are mista…es upon the im…gined connexion between the covenant of grace and the initiall seal, as hey call it. Now to Mr C. his proof.

His proof is from Rom. 9.7, …, 9, 10, 11, 16. That elect infants were Abrahams seed in covenant, which I deny not, but say that Rom. 9.8. proves not only, that all the elect seed be included in the promise, Gen. 17.7. but also that the Apostle expresly affirms, that onelyonly the elect are the children of the promise understood spiritually, and they only Abrahams 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 Scripturis faederati, filii & hoeredes promssionis, Rom. 9 8. Mr Norton, Mr C. his Colleague, commended by Mr. Co…ton with him, Respons. ad Apollon. c. 2. pag. 30. Objectum faederis gratiae sunt soli electi. Dr. Twiss Animadv. in Corvin. pag. 235. Negamus Deum pacisci faedus gratiae cum omnibus & singulis: dicimus 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 Belgia, and other patrons of Universall grace, freewill, and falling away from grace. But what Mr C. saith and I grant, proves not that Infants and little ones of visibly believing parents in Church estate, before the Infants can make any personal confession or profession of p. 330faith in the eovenant, are Abrahams 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 ingaged, or as Ifants of Abraham and Isaac, children of the promise, as if … formalis ratio of their childrens being children of the promise, w…re Abrahams and Isaacs believing and inchurching, as Mr. C. seems to conceive, it being contrary to the express determination of the Apostle, Rom 9.8. which excludes Ishmael and Esau from being children of the promise. Nor is it true, that the change of Abrahams name, Gen. 17.4, 5, 6, 7, &c. compared proves that the children of believers inchurched are Abrahams seed, but onelyonly 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, therfore they have the seal in Abraham, …hough they never are nor may be sealed in their own persons.

To this Mr. C. saith, The Apostles discourse cleareth it to be otherwise, his scope being not to infringe any Gospel-right to the Gospel-se…l, but to take off any reasoning in point of justification from any work of the Law considered apart from Christ: As for the sealing of Abrahams believing children the Gentiles in Abrah…ms sealing, if that were intended, as much might have been affirm…d of the b…lieving children of Abraham, as they such, and so the circumcising of such Iewes at least had been more than were needed …o far forth.

I reply, I grant the scope to be …o prove Iustification by faith; but I say▪ in respect of the present point the words prove no more, but that Abrahams personall ci…cumcision was to him and all that belive as he did, whether Jewes 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 Iew believer to be circumcised in their own persons, yet God might think good ex abundanti more ab…ndantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his Councell, as the words are, Heb. 6 17. and therefore would have them also circumcised in 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 Abrahams 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 personall 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 Gods releasing of the command, they were to be circumcised.

p. 331How little that Act of Christ, Luke …8▪ 1…, 16, 17. with Mark 10.16. makes for Mr C. his purpose, is shewed in the second part of the Review before, and so likewise how impertinently Esay … 1.9. & 65, 22. are alleged, is shewed before in this part of the Review. I neither grant that inchurched Gentile visible believers are any other where called Abrahams spirituall seed: Nor do I think Anabaptists wil grant, that if they were, then are their children also.

But, saith he, The parents being not meerly abstractively considered the Covenant-seed, Gen. 17.7. …ut as in reference to their childen with them. For the seed of Abraham to whom the Covenant Gen. 17.7. is made, is the seed in their ge…erations, which necessarily imply and supp…se as the parents generating, so th… children begotten of them, the parents make not the generation alone, nor the children alone, but …oyntly considered together.

Answer. No person is the Covenant-seed, Gen. 17 7. but Abrahams seed, which being meant of his naturall seed, so it includes all descended from him by Isaac and Jacob in their …uture g…nerations; if meant of his spirituall 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. Here Anabaptists sever the subject parties taken into the covenant-consideration, they agree it's Abraham & his spiritual seed, but leave out the notation of the seed, soil. seed in their generations the proselyte Gentiles in Abrahams house, they were not his carnall seed; why are they then sealed, but as they were Abrahams spiri…ual and Church-seed.

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 Abrahams Church-Seed is a new-devised term without Scripture: Yet the proselytes and their chi…dren were to be circumcised by vertue 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 Gods solemnly enjoyning 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 Gods, I deny it; it was a Covenant of Gods, 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 enjoyned 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 enjoyn the Seal to be put to a Blank.

Circumcision, in the Institution of it, was a token or signe 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 Abrahams. What Mr. C. means, That it was a seal of the righteousness of Faith, p. 332not so much Subjectivè as Objectivè, 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 Abrahams personall circumcision, I conc…ive it sealed both wayes, of any other mans 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 Gods institution, a visible Seal of the most spirituall part of the covenant, and yet did not Iscariot and Magus partake of the spirituall part of the Covenant, my former explication being remembred. And I take it as true which next followes, 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 onelyonly. 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, Iustification, &c. But that is made onelyonly 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 onelyonly have the saving efficacie, 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 Gods 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 mixt, 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 cloaths, 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 onelyonly, and did confirm the whole covenant sacramentally to elect and reprobate.

Mr. C. yet adds, That if that sort of persons, to wit, Infants, or Abrahams spirituall seed without personall actuall faith by which it's said onelyonly persons come to be Abrahams seed, it's enough to prove, that Gentile inchurched believers infants are the the seed of Abraham. But that is fully proved from Gal. 3.7.6.9.16.27, 28, 29. where, by Christ, is meant Christ mysticall, that is, Christ with his Body the Church, as 1 Cor. 12.13. If then Infants be not Abrahams seed, then are they not members of Christ, nor of the invisible Church, and so are without salvati…n.

p. 333To which I answer, That I never denied that elect infants were Abrahams spirituall seed, nor said onelyonly by actuall faith persons are Abrahams spiritual seed▪ but grant that some infants are Abrahams spirituall seed, whether by election onelyonly, or by seed of fai…h, or by such a special secret work as is unknown to us, like Jacobs 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 Abrahams 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. I say to exclude that sort of persons scil. believers Infants from being a part of the visible-church in genera… is to exclude them from any ordinary state and way of salvation. Nay I will go further and say, that for any to suppose all the individual Infants and each of them which came of such inchurched parents, not to be also par…s of this body of Christ the visible Church, and consequently not to be Abrahams spiritual seed, is to exclude them from a state and way of salvation. In respect to the ordinary course thereo…, and so to leave them all under the consideration of such a way to be saved in as is only extraordinary: ordinarily they are not to be supposed to be saved, or at least it is not to be supposed, that ordinarily, or that in an ordinary way any Pagans, or Turkes out of the visible Church, or any in and of Rome as Tridentine and Antichristian should be saved: yet God may and somtimes doth, and will have some souls brought on to him thence, and even from amongst Mahometans &c. But all will yeild I suppose that this is an extraordinary case: and so crosseth not that rule, that without even the visi…le Church there is no salvation; scil. Taking the maxime in reference to ordinary times, and with all to the ordinary course and w…y of attaining unto salvation.

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 maxime 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 shew how children of believ…rs endued with a reasonable soul and humane body, yet still-born or dying in their mothers womb with her and never born are provided for an ordinary way of salvation as wel 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 vertue of Christs 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 … p. 334professors 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 Abrahams visible Church-seed in reference to Church-covenant, and I supp…se they of N. E. baptize not infants of parents not inchurched; what ordinary way of salvation have children of believers not inchurched, 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 originall 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 Gods purpose by vertue of Gods p…omise, Christs 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 generall 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 universall to every believers infants; yea, if they were, as Pedobaptists would have them, universall in respect of externall 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 judgement, and leave it to Gods secret will, having no rule revealed whereby to determine it. If Mr. C. assure any more, I conceive he wiil deceive himself and others. Dr. Twiss. Animadvers. in Corvin. pag. 35. saith thus: Ad h…c fortè 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 sanè non diffiteor exitia hujus rei suppeditari nobis ex sacris li…eris indi…i…, quibus tamen acquiescimus. But Mr C. adds, Such then as exclude all Infants of believers one or other from the notion of Abrahams spiritual seed, from covenant and Church-estate, they put them in the Pagans, Genti…es estate, … of which Paul speakes, who being they and others strangers from the promise and covenants, and from the visible Church: they place them in that respect in an estate of persons that are without God in the world, and so under the Divel the God of the world; and in an hopeless estate, neither they nor any for them can have any grounded hope of them, they are without hope, in regard at least of any ordinary way or mean of salvation, Eph. 2.11, 12.

Answ. I exclude not all infants of believers one or other from the notion p. 335of Abrahams spirituall seed, from Covenant and Church-estate, meaning this of being Abrahams 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 Divel, nor without God in the world. And if they do, they do it without Scipture, 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 Defence, 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 Apologie, sect. 14. I have shewed here and in my Examen, Part 2 Sect. 10. and in my Apologie Sect. 14. that I put the elect of them into the covenant of grace, and in the invisible Church, and this onelyonly 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. generall indefinite promises not made to Turkes and Pagans, 2. The payers of parents and godly for them, 3. Their education and breeding among the godly, whereby they are in a neerer 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 Gods will & the education may fa…l in its effect, and experience is not so constant, but that it falls out otherwise in many, therfore 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 instil into peoples … tha… which tends to make us odious, that our doctrin takes aw…y all … p. 336hope 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 hopefull as believers and their children, because of the generall 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 generall 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 hopefull 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 mens 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 shewed, 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 reall believer, much lesse of a meer professor dying in infancy; yea, to retort Mr C. his Argument, we are not to sorrow without hope, concerning our brethren that dye at age: yet we have no certain word of faith to relye 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 onelyonly probably, though the probability is greater by reason of his profession and conversation, yet at most but probable, notwithstanding those signes, we are not certain he is elect, he may live and dye an hypocrite. Many are canonized for Saints in …eaven 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 our selves with a likely hope upon probable grounds. And so we may do concerning our children according to my doctrine, though I confesse 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 any thing 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 mens 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 Controversie: 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 p. 337do 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 Zuinglius, 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 mens 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.