Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 45
SECT. XLV. Mr C. his Answers to objections against his seventh Conclusion, part. 1. c. 3. Sect. 9. of his Just Vindic. are considered, and Mr. Bl. his Tenent concerning the generall term of a Covenant, that it is a mutuall agreement.
I Wave the first Objection here, and for my speeches about Pharez, Zara, and others, and that of the Jewes being branches of the Olive by their birth, that I forget not my self, and how far I own them and wherein I correct them, or explain them, may be seen in the first part of the Review, Sect. 6.1…, 21.
The second objection is thus, If Infants be in the Covenant of grace, and born so, then such Infants were born in the Covenant, and never out. And besides, Gods Covenant of saving grace bi…g absolute, and undertaking to give saving grace to such as are in covenant with him, all such must be saved, unless God fail of his truth.
To this Mr. C. answers, 1. That Covenant of grace, as I. S. acknowledgeth it to be mentioned, Deu. 29. it was made with little ones then unborn intentionally, v. 14, 15. as well as with those then present actually: So that when they were born▪ they were born in the covenant and never out. As much may be said of the Infant Elect seed, or children of the promise dying infants, they were born so, and never out of that estate after they were actually existent: yea they were all girded in the covenant, Jer. 13.
Answ. The passage Deut. 29.15. is not meant of Gods covenant or promise to them, but their promise or covenant to God, as appears in that v. 14. Moses is said to make the covenant with them, that is, to engage them in their own persons for themselves and little ones to own God and his lawes, and v. 15. it is said, before the Lord our God, which shewes that the person making that covenant, v. 14. was distinct from the Lord, and this Covenant he made with him that was not there with them that day, to wit, the unborn posterity, as rightly M. C. and others eonceive, and this Covenant Moses made with them by engaging them by an oath of their P…inces and progenitors, in the same sense as Saul and the Israelites were bound to the Oath made by Joshuah and the Princes of Israelites to the Gibeonites▪ So that those unborn are not said to be in Gods Covenant of grace as made by him, and so intentionally onelyonly because not existent; but they were in covenant with God virtually, because of the Obliga…ion which lay on them by their progenitors and Princes engagement for them to take the Lord for their God, and upon their obedience God engaged himself to establ…sh them to be a people unto himself. And this, I confess, did ever oblige them; but it is nothing to the objection which speaks of Gods Covenant as made to infants, not of infants Covenant as made to God. Nevertheless I confess what ever were the Authors meaning in that Objection, it is no absurdity to grant, that elect infants dying so, were born in the Covenant and never out, that is, they had the promise of God made to them at, yea and before their birth, and in respect of the actuall possession of the benefits of the covenant, they were in the covenant before their death and never out. But so are not elect infants dying in respect of outward Church-privileges, they are not born visible Church-members, nor subject to be baptized.
2. Saith Mr C. Gods Covenant did not barely offer, or promise to covenant; but made a Covenant, a Covenant and an Oath with them that day, Deut. 29.12, 13, 14, 15. and amongst other promises engaged himself to circumcise their hearts chap. 30.6. yet were not all in heart circumcised, and yet the promise of God failed not, being in the generall propounded to them conditionally, and not as it is said here absolutely, at least it had reference to them all in common. The word of the promise took not effect in as many of the Jewes to whom the covenant promises externally belonged, yet it followed not, that therefore it took no effect at all, and that God was unfaithfull, for it took effect in others, Rom. 3.3. and 9.6, 7, 8. And so here.
Answ. What this is to the objection which is here answered, I do not well understand. Gods covenant of saving grace, whether expressed Gen. 17.7. to A…raham and his spirituall seed, or Heb. 8.10 or elswhere, is absolute in respect of the persons to whom, God takes into covenant persons of his own good pleasure without any previous disposition moving him to promise to this rather than that, though some benefits of that covenant are promised upon condition, and all those to whom it is made, must be saved, unless God fail of his truth. But for the Covenant, Deut 29.12, 13, 14, 15. it was their covenant to God, as well as Gods covenant to them, nor was it the covenant of grace according to the Gospell made to Gentile-believers, but a nationall engagement of the Israelites to observe the lawes of God which Moses made with them at Gods command in the Land of Moab, besides the Covenant which he made with them in Hor…b, and Gods engagement thereupon to take them for a people while they observed his Laws In which covenant first Moses tells them what God hath done for them, notwithstanding their dulness to perceive it; and then ejoyns them, v. 9 to keep the words of the Covenant and do them, that they might prosper in all that they did: and then tells them, that they all stood there in a full Assembly, that they might be engaged for themselves, their little ones, strangers within their Camp, and posterity to observe Gods Commands, and then tells them that God would establish them for a people unto himself, that is, that he would continue them to be a distinct people to him from other nations, and be a God to them according to his oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that is, to drive out …he Canaanites, to give them their Land, to make them great and prosperous, which is manifestly a covenant proper to Israel, and it is not denied to be propounded to them conditionally, and to have reference to them all in common, and was of the same sort with the covenant at mount Sinai ▪ not the covenant of regenerating and saving grace made to the Gentiles, called the new Covenant confirmed by Christs blood, Deut. 30.6. God promised to circumcise their heart and the heart of their seed: which promise I do not now conceive to be conditionall: For though v. 2. there be a condition expressed, yet I think it is not a condition of the promise v. 6. but of the promise v. 3. to wit, of restoring from captivity upon their seeking of God. But if it be made a condition of the promise v. 6. yet it is not a condition competent to Infants, nor is it there made to any but the Israelites, and to them onelyonly at the time of their return from captivity in reference to their reestablishing in the land of Canaan, and so was not common to them all, much less to all believing Gentiles at all times. It is untrue that the promise of saving grace is made to any onelyonly externally, or that it takes not effect in all to whom it is made, or that any such thing is meant Rom. 3.3. & 9.6, 7, 8. though I deny not that there were many promises to Israel after the flesh, which being indefinite in respect of persons, and conditionall upon obedience to the lawes given by Moses, took not effect in all the Israelites, though in generall propounded, and therefore notwithstanding some attained them not, yet the faith of God was not without effect. But all this is nothing to the objection concerning Gods covenant of saving grace in Christ, which is not shewed to be made to any but the saved, nor shewed to be in respect of the persons taken into covenant conditional.
3 Saith Mr. C. This Argument supposeth that one cannot be within the Covenant of saving grace externally, but they must be in a saving estate, the contrary whereunto appeareth, Concl. 3. And it is said of sundry illegitimate Jewish Children, that they were within the covenant of saving grace, namely externally: for the Author cannot mean other. And yet of all such who will say, they were all in a saving estate? Even Esau's Birthright was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac, it was a Church blessing as well as a Naturall and Civill.
Ans. That any one is in the covenant of saving grace onelyonly externally, is not proved before. My words Examen pag. 78. which M… C. seems to mean, […h…t Pharez and Zarah of Judah and Tamar, Jephie of Gilead, and many others were within the covenant of saving graces and Church-privileges] are not meant of the covenant of saving grace ex…ernally onelyonly, but also internally. Esau's birth-right was more than right to Isaac's temporall estate as born of Isaac, it is that which Jacob was not born to, for it was foreign, the right of the first born, which Jacob had not but by purchase and blessing, nor is it denied to be a Church-blessing, but that it was the spirituall blessing promised to Abrahams seed, to wit justification and salvation from the covenant of saving grace I do not conceive: for that was not limited to the first born as the birth-right was, and therefore it se…ms to have been either the superiority, or the inh…ritance of Canaan, or the descent of Christ and the Chuch of God from him (to which I most incline) the losse of wh…ch being a great losse, and having with it the privation of interest in the covenant of saving grace, he being h…ted of God, made Isaac tremble and Esau cry, and were a … instance to set before the Cristian Hebrews, lest th…y through prophane under…ing Christ, fail of the grace of God.
Mr. C. adds 3. Object But saith …. S. the Covenant of grace being a Covenant, there must be a mutuall agreement betwixt the Covenanters, and so knowledge and consideration of the terms thereof, and restipulation as in mens covenants. Henry Den a little differently maketh a necessity of the persons entering into covenant with God, scil. by faith unto covenant-right, and not meerly Gods entering into Covenant with the creature, for so he entered into covenant with the Beasts, &c. Gen. 9 10. Answer. To which I answer, the covenant of grace is as well a Testament, 1 Cor. 11. Heb 9. Now a Testament may be, and useth to be made in reference to little ones without their knowledge, nor do any us… to deny a Childs right in the Testators will because it was taken in amongst other Legacies in the bequeathed Legacies before it understood the same. Nor will it be denied in the case of the elect seed, the choice parties in Gods Covenant, Gen. 17. That they, many of them, dying Infants, without actuall knowledge, were not therefore children of the promise, or that that solemn Covenant Deut. 29.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 30.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, &c. with that people, wherein conditions also were propounded on their parts, that therefore the Covenant was not made betwixt the little ones there present because they neither understood▪ nor could actually subscribe to the conditions, the contrary being there expressed: No, rather it sufficed, that the childrens covenant-estate being the parents privilege, whence the encouragements to Abraham to walk with God, Gen. 17.1, &c. from that amongst other encouragements, that God would become his Seeds God also, &,. v. 7. and so Deut. 29 and 30. amoongst other encouragements to the parents that is one, v. 6. that God will do so for their seed also: yea the children being reckoned as in their parents, as Levi paid Tythes in Abraham, &c. Yea, the externall avouching a Covenant may be of God, being owned as the children…, Deut. …6.16, 17. yea the childrens circumcision being as well the parents covenant duty: whence called the Covenant, or the covenant parties covenant part or duty as well as the token of Gods Covenant, Gen. 9.7, 9, 10, 11. they restipulate in their parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant and professed owning of it upon the Covenant terms, as well upon their childrens part as their own & they restipulate in a passive reception of the Cvenant-condition and Bond too after imitation of their Father Abrahams faith and obedience: To which purpose …. S. confessed circumcision was annexed to the covenan…: yea, the bastard children of Judah and Gilead, and others, are acknowledged to be in the Covenant of saving grace, which yet could not personally restipulate in a way of actuall knowledge, or faith, or the like.
Answ. The Objection, as it is not mine, so I might let it and the answer passe, but that there are some things in the answer to it, that do requi…e consideration. In the first part of this Review▪ Sect. 5. answering Mr. Stephens his argumen…s for the Convertibility, as he ca…ls i…, of a word of promise and a word of command, from the general nature of Covenants between men and men, I had said, the words foreign and foreign …o not alwayes note a mutuall covenant, and mutuall performanc…s▪ and instanced in Gen. 9.10. and said,, there is a single covenant as well as mu…uall, and further added, that if it be true, that such a convertibility must needs be between those persons that do contract according to the generall nature of Covenants, then there can be no Covenant between God and Inf…nt … Infant cannot contract. If any say the Parents do … act for them to: I say, Be it so; then according to this arguing, they should also seal o… be sealed for them Hereup…n Mr Bl. Vindic F…d. Append. pag. 470. taks occasion to answer part of this, maintaining pag. 479. that there is a mutuall contract, and mutual performances, to which persons are engaged, not onelyonly usually in covenants, but in all covenants, and that i… is of the general nature of Covenants, that there should be such a convertibility as that both must, if not seal, yet contrast or perform, and where a Seal is vouchsafed, must accept of it. And to the allegation of Gen. 9.9, 10. answers foreign, is taken improperly, as Job 5.23.
Whereto I reply, That it must needs be confessed, that Covenant, Job 5.23. must needs be understood improperly, for the stones of the field cannot properly covenant, that is, promise any thing, who are there said to be in covenant with Man, But Gen. 9.9, 10. where God is said to establish his covenant with all living. I see not why it should be taken improperly, sith covenanting doth properly agree to God, who doth in proper sense promise, and in improper sense it would not be rightly said of God, that he did not make a Conant, but as it were make a covenant, or do some other thing which is resembled by making a Covenant, which must be the explication of that phrase if God be conceived to speak improperly. If Mr Bl. do conceive any Tropicall impropriety of speech in that expression, I suppose he cannot reduce it to any Trope in Rhetorick, but that he will ma… the sense of the words. And if Gods Covenant with Noah and his Sons, be properly understood v. 9. I see not any reason why the same term wi…hout repetition applied to beasts, as the object of the Covenant, c…n be taken any otherwise than properly. Besides, this Covenant Gen. 9.15 seems to be called Gods Oath, Isa. 54.9. and therefore is properly taken. Nor do I know any Interpreter who understands it improperly. Paraeus hence gathers, Foedus hoc est universale Dei cum omnibus creaturis terrestribus. & est absolutum non conditiona…um. And the New Annotations of Mr. L…y▪ on Gen. 9 10 have it thus: Some allege this place against the Anabaptists, and thus it may serve to refute this fancy, viz. that the Covenant of God may be made with, and the seal of the Covenant applied to creatures that have not the use of reason, which they deny, in denying the administration of Baptism to them. Which pass…ge although it have this falshood, that we deny that the Covenant of God may be ma…e with or to Infants: yet it appears that they who speak thus, understand Gods covenant Gen. 9.10▪ properly. The promise Heb. 8.10. of writing Gods Lawes in their hearts, is called the Covenant, unto which no covenant is prerequired, and to take away the evasion, as if it were not a covenant properly so called, but a prophecy, or but a part of the covenant, there being other promises which prerequire conditions, it is to be observed, that it is not onelyonly called the better Covenant, v. 6. as being made a Law upon better promises, and having a better Priesthood to execute it, but also it is opposed to the Old Covenan…, and as coming in its stead, and therefore if in the one it be properly meant, it is so in the other: and Jerem. 32.…0. the promise, that He will not turn away from them to do them good, but will put his fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from him ▪ is his Covenant. The Covenant to Abraham and his se…d is called Promises, Gal 3.26. which shews that promis…s on one part may b… called … Covenant. And though in De…ds indented there are mutuall promises, yet in Deeds Poll as the Lawyers call them, I think a person is said to covenant to another, though there be no condition or promise required of him to whom the Deed is made. As for that which Mr. Bl. saith, Where there is a Seal vouchsafed, the party to whom the promise is, must accept of it: it is true if it be required, but it is expected that it should be shewed, that God ever required the Infants of believers to be baptized in their own persons.
To return to Mr. C. Most of the things he answers are granted, or else examined before; but the chiefest thing in the answer is denied, to wit, that Parents knowing acceptance of the Covenant, and their passive reception of the Covenant-condition and Bond to after imitation of their Father Abrahams faith and obedience, is or may be termed the Infants restipulation intituling to Baptism.
In the answer to the next Objection, Mr. C seems to charge us rather than himself, to block up the ordinary way to regeneration, and to debar believers children from the ordinary means of their chief good, by denying them interest in the Word of Promise, the which is such a means, &c.
But therin Mr C. his charge is but vain: For the word of Promise, which is the means of regeneration, is not the covenant of externall privileges, but the promise of saving grace in Christ, which we debar them of no more than Mr. C. doth. And when he denies that he makes every believer to be Abraham, sure he must do so if he expound Gen. 17.7. I will be a God to thee Abraham, that is, to every believer, and to thy seed, that is, every believers seed. And when he grants that God doth not promise such a particular Land now as to Abraham, and that the multiplying of Abrahams, &c. was of peculiar consideration, he must grant that the Covenant made with Abraham had peculiar domestick promises not common to all believers, which is all one as to say, it was a mixt covenant, and that circumcision had some reason from the promises in the covenant, which were p…culiar to Abrams naturall posterity, which is sufficient to prove there is not par ratio ▪ or the same reason of bapt…zing infants, as for circumcising them. I find no where any but Abraham a Covenant-Father, as Mr. C. would have it, no where doth God say he would be a God to Isaac, and Jacob, and to their seed: Nor is it said, Rom. 11.16.28, that they were covenant Fathers to their posterity, nor Jesse a Covenant-root to David, Isai. 11.1. And by Mr C. his Doctrine, inchurched believers are made Abrahams, sith it makes the prom…ses to be to them and their seed, which is ascribed to Abraham onelyonly, Gal 3.16. Luke 1.55.
But Mr. C. objects, That the Apostle calls all those inchurched Jewes of old, our Fathers, Fathers to him and to the Gentiles, Corinthian members, 1 Corinth: 10.1, &c.
To which I answer, They could not be called the Corinthians naturall parents, being not descended from them; nor their Covenant-fathers, for they were many of them such, as God was not well pleased with, v. 6. and the Corin…hians desce…ded not from them, and therefore derived no ex…ernall Church-privilege from them: therefore either it must be understood that they were called Ancestors of the Corinthian Christians, who are called Idolaters, chap. 12.2. either in the sense we call any in foregoing generations our Fathers though we are not descended from them by naturall generation, or else by the Figure of communication, wherein that is spoken as common to others with the persons mentioned, which is not common indeed, but either ou… of familiarity, indulgence, desire to ingratiate, or such like reason we attribute it to them to whom it is not to be attributed, as Paul, Ephes. 2.2, 3. Peter 1 Pet. 4.3. which was not true of them. Philip. 3.6. Acts 23.1. but meant of the Gentiles to whom they wrot, Col. 2.13. Gal. 2.15. and so Our Fathers is not of you Corinthians, but of me and Softheues, 1 Cor. 1.1, or by an enallage of persons, as when Paul saith, 1 Thess. 4.17. we which are alive, it is not to be conceived to be true of himself, or of any of the Thessalonians to whom he then wrot, but it is [We] for [They] the first for the third person.
But saith Mr. C. If Isaac and Jacob were not such Fathers to their seed also, as was Abraham in Covenant and Church-respects, how then are the Jewes said to be beloved for their [Fathers] sakes? Surely it was not for their sakes as men, and naturall Fathers, but as spirituall and Covenant-fathers, Rom. 11.26, 28. compared; yea the Covenant is expresly made in those terms to Isaac & to his seed, to Jacob and to his seed, Gen. 26.3, 4, 5, & 28 13, 14. And so though they were Abrahams Church and Covenant seed, yet Covenant Fathers to others, and so Gentile inchurched believers are Abrahams Church-seed, yet Covenant-fathers to their Children.
The term Root, and first Fruits, and the term Fathers, Rom. 11.16.28. are not proved to be the same. The Fathers, it's not denied to comprehend Isaac and Jacob, as well as Abraham: But they are called Fathers there in respect of the naturall genera…ion of the Israelites to be re-ingraffed, not as Covenant-Fathers propagating externall Church privileges even to Gentile inchurched believers: For they are there reckoned as the Israelites progenitors, not the Gentile inchurched believers progenitors. Yet I deny not that God hath reference in that passage to his covenant made with them, and his love to them▪ and so the Jewes now broken off, yet are beloved by God, with an intention to restore their posterity out of remembrance of his ancient amity and covenant with their forefathers, which cannot be verified of the Gentile inchurched believers in respect of their children. Neither Gen. 26.3, 4, 5, nor Gen. 28.13, 14, is either of the Evangelicall promises made to Abraham, Gen. 17.5, A Father of many Nations have I made thee, or that v. 7. to be a God to him and his seed, made either to Isaac, Gen. 26.3, 4, 5, or Jacob, Gen. 28.13, 14. though the promises of multiplying their Seed, blessing them, giving them the land of Canaan in their Seed, blessing all the Nations or Families of the earth, be there mentioned, which, with sundry passages, of the Apostle Rom. 4.11, 12, 16, 17. Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. Gal. 3, 16, 29, and other places assure me those Evangelicall promises, Gen. 17.5.7. were made to Abraham peculiarly, neither as a Patriarch out of a reason common to him with other Patriarks, nor as a believer …ut of a reason common to him wi…h other believers, but out of a peculiar consideration of …im, either as Father of believers by his exemplary faith, or as a person elected by God to have the covenant instated in him and his seed.
As for Mr. C. his answer to the objection from Rom. 4.16. if that Text prove not that all that are Abrahams seed are actuall believers, yet i… proves that the promise is sure to all that are Abrahams seed by actuall believing as he did, and consequently are saved.
To his qustion, If all members of the visible Church be not Abrahams seed, what right have they to the seal of the covenant made to Abrahams seed? I answer▪ Right to Circumcision …nd Baptism is not from the Covenant, but according to Gods appointment to some, whether they be in covenant or not, Abrahams seed or not.
Gal. 4.26, 28, 31. Gal. 3.29. I have formerly shewed that by [VsUs all] are not meant every Galatian Christian Professor, but true believers, as Rom. 8 32. 1 Cor. 12, 13. 2 Cor. 3.18. & therefore thence it cannot be gathered, that any meer professor of faith is Abrahams seed, much less his infants. None but true believers are said Gal. 3.27, to be baptized into Christ, and to put on Christ, though others were baptized into his Name: which appears verse 26. where they are said to be the Sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, and yet there were other than elect persons in that Church, and they baptized. Mr. C. methinks should not be ignorant that what is said of persons in the Churches indefinitely, is sometimes verified onelyonly of the choyce party, 1 Cor. 1.1. 1 Thess. 1.4. 1 Pet. 1.5. & 2.9. by a Synecdoche of the whole for a part Nor doth Mr C. his distinction of baptizing into Christ, putting on Christ, being Children of the promise, being by one spirit baptized into one body, attributing these to all Sacramentally, and in facie Ecclesiae, suit well to these places, in which the predicate cannot be attributed in truth to those that are meerly such.
As for the last Objection, Mr. C. must needs be guilty of making three parties in the Covenant, Abraham, his seed Believers, and their Infants. For Believers are not comprehended under Abraham, but under his seed, nor believers naturall infants comprehended under Abrahams seed, except they be true believers, or elect persons, nor in the covenant made to Abraham and his Seed doth Abraham sustain the person of all believers, Jewes and Genti…es, but of the Father of them, and therefore as yet Mr. C. his Conclusion remains unproved, that the Covenant interest at least Externall and Ecclesiasticall of Infants of inchurched Believers, is Gospel, but a Figment of Mr. C. not found in Scripture.