Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 30

Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3 · Section 30

p. 215SECT. XXX. Of the meaning of Mr. M. his second Conclusion, the ambiguitie of which is shewed.

I now return to Mr. M. whose second Conclusion was thus expressed, Ever since God gathered a distinct select number out of the world to be his Kingdome, Citie, houshold in opposition to the rest of the world, which is the kingdome, citie, houshold of Satan, he would have the i…fants of all who are taken into covenant with him, to be accounted his, to belong to him, to his Church and Family, and not to the Devils. This conclusion b…ing the main pillar upon which he settles Infant-baptism, the Antecedent of his Euthymem I examined with great di…igence after the exact manner of Scholastick Writers in their Disputes. Which dealing of mine being indeed the one…y way to clear truth, and approved by a learned member of the Assembly [Mr R.C. of P.C.O.] and known to be one of the most accurate disputants in his time in Oxford, yet Mr M. pag. 105. of his Defence, in a most inj…rious though frivolous way, traduce…h as an indirect Artifice. To which some answer is given in my Apologie sect. 5. pag▪ 23 I shall now view the reply he makes: First, he compares my dealing with an unnam'd person in Cambridge, whose faculty was to make a clear text dark by his Interpretation: whereas my way was the true and onelyonly way to clear his meanin… by distinction, which is by Logicians called the light of speech, and in all consideration of things to be first, as Keckerm. Log Syst, part. 2. lib. 1. c. 1 sp…aks: No… h…h Mr M. shewed in his Defence, that any of those senses of his words which I set down, might not be conceived to be his meaning; and therefore his complaint of me is ridiculous, and I shall have cause to censure him as a confused Dict…t…r rather than an accurate Disputer, who doth so indistinctly set down his main conclusion, That an adversary cannot determinely resolve what is the meaning, and so nei…her easily examine his proofs, nor know what to oppose.

B… he tells me he meant it of a visible priviledge, in facie Ec…lesiae visibilis, yet he doth not tell what that visible priviledge is. He tells me, That they have their share in Foedus externum; but sets not down what share they have, nor what he means by Foedus externum, in which they have share. And after he saith, God would have the children of them who by externall vocation and profession joyn to the Church of God even while they are children, to enjoy the same priviledge wi…h them, which hath also ambiguity in it. For whereas there are many priviledges which the parents enjoy, as R. G. to be baptized, to be admitted p. 216to the Lords Supper, perhaps the Father to be an Elder teaching or ruling, or a Deacon in the Church, and by (Children) may be meant persons of ten or twenty years old, and while▪ they are children may be understood either during their infancy, or during their relation as children to their parents (which is as long as they are men) the words may be understood either that they have the same priviledge of admission to the Lords Supper or Church-government, while they are infants, or that they have even in infancy the same priviledge to be baptized that the parent had upon his profession. Which last if it were his meanng (as most likely it was) then his second conclusion being the same with his Antecedent in his Euthymem, his argument is an inapt tautology, Infants of professors have the same priviledge with the parents to be baptized: Ergo they are to be baptized, which is to prove the same by the same: yet this I must needs take to be his meaning, till he shew what other priviledge wi…h their parents children of vi-sible professors have in infancy.

Then he distinguisheth of the Covenant of grace taken largely and strictly, which distinction is shewed before Sect. 25, to have no footing in Scripture, and to be inaptly used by Mr M. He distinguisheth of Jewes some Abrahams seed according to the promise, some onelyonly in the face of the visible Church, and of being in Christ by the mysticall union, and by visible and externall profession Which distinction I mislike not though they be not of use here, sith they were not the terms used in his Conclusion. He distinguisheth of Seals belonging to the Covenant, the Seal of the Spirit, and externall Seals. But he nei…her shew…s where the externall seals (as he calls them) are tearmed Seals of the Covenant: nor was the term (Seal of the Covenant) at all used in his conclusion. Yea to shew how unskilfully he handles the matter in all these distinctions, he doth not distinguish any of those terms that were in question, and were the predicate in his proposition, to wit, to be accounted Gods, to belong to him, to his Church and family, and not to the Devils. And this piece of unskilfulness is in that which followeth.

When therefore I say they are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents, I mean, look what right a visible professor hath to be received and reputed to belong to the visible Church, quà visi…le professor, that right hath his child so to be esteemed.

But first, this speech here explained was not in his Conclusion in his Sermon, these words were not there, They are visibly to be reckoned to belong to the Covenant with their parents, but this, They are to be accounted Gods, to belong to him, to his Church and Family, and not to the Devils. 2. Were the sense here given the meaning of his Conclusion, it would not be true. For if the right belong to the visible professors, quà visible professors, the same right cannot belong to the child except he be a visible professor. For what agrees to any quà talis, as such, agrees universaliter & reciproce, and therefore by this expression, every visible professor is to be received and esteemed, and every one to be so received and esteemed, is a visible professor, which cannot be said with any truth or shew of truth of the infant child of a believer. Besides, if this Conclusion were good, an infant should have right to be admitted to the Lords Supper sith the parent hath right thereto as a visible professor.

But Mr. M. makes a large discourse to prove, That to those to whom the spiritual part of the Covenant belongs not, yet there are outward Church-privileges p. 217which belong to them as they are visible professors. And to prove this he cites, Gen. 6.1. Deut. 14.1. Gal. 3.26. Matth. 8, 12. Acts 3.25. Rom. 9.4. Rom. 9.3.1. Iohn 8 17. Psal. 147.19, 20. Deut. 33.4. Iohn 4.22.

In answer to which I say, …, That I grant this speech to be true. 2. I deny that the Texts are pertinent to the purpose of Mr. M. who intends this speech of Gentile visible professors, whereas the texts are most of them of the privileges peculiar to the Jewish people, namely, Deut. 14.1. Matth. 8.12. Acts 3.25. Rom. 9.4. Rom. 3.1. Iohn 8.17. Psal. 147 19, 20. Deut. 33.4. Iohn 4.22. Of the other two the former is of those before the Flood, who whether they were called Sons of God by descent, or profession, or some other way, it is uncertain. The other Gal. 3.26. is to be understood of being the Sons of God really, and the term [All] is to be limited, as v. 27. by [ye that are believers] as the very words shew. For when he saith Ye are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Iesus, it is plain this is meant onelyonly of those who had faith in Christ Iesus 3. In all this discourse he doth not shew a Text proving the privileges he mentions to belong to the infants of Gentile visible professors. Certainly some of them cannot be applied; no, not to the Infants of the Jewish nation, as v. 9. that to them were committed the Oracles of God, that to them God shewed his word, &c. 4 Nor doth Mr M. distinctly tell us, which of these, …or what other outward priviledge it is that belongs to the Infants of visible professors, which is the onelyonly thing pertinent to the present business.

After this he asserts, That there are some rightly admitted by the Church to visible Membership who onelyonly partake of the visible priviledges, and undertakes to prove it from Rom. 11. But I have in the first p…rt of this Review shewed Mr Ms, and others mistakes about the ingraffing, Rom. 11.17. and proved that it is meant of giving faith according …o election. Yet I grant it true which Mr M. asserts in those word, and do take notice that pag. 110. he acknowledgeth that I grant in my Examen pag. 149. a lawfulness of admitting men into a visible communion upon a visible profession, and that rightly even by a judgement of faith, though their inward holiness be unknown to us. And yet in the next pag. 111. he tells me, This mistake runs through your whole Book, that none are to be reputed to have a visible right to the Covenant of Grace, but onily such as partake of the saving graces of it. But of this calumny more may be seen in my Apologie, Sect. 10. pag. 47.

After all these expressions of his meaning in his Conclusion he adds, pag. 111. This then was and is my meaning when I say, that infants of Believers are confederates with their parents, that they have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members, as their parents have by being visible professors, and are therefore to be admitted to all such externall priviledges as their infant-age is capable of; and that the visible Church is made up of such visible professors and their children; that the invisible takes in neither all of the one, nor the other, but some of both.

In answer whereto I say, 1. Neither Mr M. in his pretended explication keeps the terms of his second Conclusion in which the words were not as Mr. M. sets them down, That infants of believers are confederates with their parents. Nor (2) do any of the words explain that proposition. Far would any that knowes the meaning of words, take this for a right paraphrase? Infants of believers are confederate with their parents, that is; they have the same visible right, p. 218&c. Is [confederate] all one with [to have visible right, to be reputed Church-members, to be admitted to externall Church-priviledges, to be of the visible Church?] Yea would not a Grammarian count such a paraphrase to be quite besides the words paraphrased, and the words paraphrased plainer than the paraphrase it self? Sure [Confederate] is [being in Covenamt together] And yet in all this Paraphrase there is not so much as the term Covenant mentioned, much lesse any explication in what covenant, and in what manner, by what act believing parents are in covenant together with their infants. 3. By this Paraphrase we have 4 propositions of one, like so many Hydra's heads rising up in the place of one▪ The first is, That Infants of believers have the same visible right to be reputed Church-members as their parents have by being visible professors. But this is manifestly false: For if the visible right be by being visible professors, infants cannot have the same visible right but by being visible professors, which to assert of them is all one as to say, the snow is black. The second, [And are therefore to be admitted to all such externall Church-priviledges as their infant age is capable of] is ambiguous: for the capacity of their infant-age may be understood of Capacity from the institution of God; and so infants of Gentile-believers are to be admitted to no externall priviledges Sacramentall, for none are appointed for them: or naturall capacity in respect of receiving the Sacrament, and then if by the Sacrament be meant not onelyonly the outward element, but also the use or signification by it, they have not a naturall capacity of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism: if onelyonly of the elements they are capable also of the Lords Supper, as well as baptism. For they may eat and drink bread and wine as well as be washed by baptism. The third proposition is, That the visible Church is made up of such visible professors and their children. This is indeed the conclusion of the Assembly in their Confession of Faith, ch. 25. art. 2. and they cite to prove it, 1 Cor. 7.14. Acts 2.39. Ezek. 16.20, 21. Rom. 11.16. The impertinency of which is shewed before in the first part of this Review, and in that which goes before in this part of this Review: Of the impertinency of two other texts, to wit, Gen. 3.15. Gen. 17.7. Somewhat is said also before, and more is intended to be decla-in the remainder of this Review. The fourth proposition, That the invisible neither takes in all of the one nor the other, but some of both, I grant to be true.

After all these Mr M adds, I beseech you stand no longer doubtfull of my meaning: I mean of them as I mean of other visible professors, they are taken into covenant both wayes respectively, according as they are elect or not elect; all of them are in covenant in respect of out-ward priviledges, the elect over & above the outward priviledges, are in covenant with respect to saving graces; and the same is to be said of visible members both parents and infants under the N. T. in this point of being in covenant as was to be said of visible members in the former administration, whether Jewes and their children, or Proselytes and their children.

Answer. Here again Mr M. explains the term Of Infants being taken into Covenant, which was not in his second conclusion▪ However I note first, That in respect of saving grace, all the infants of believers are not taken into covenant, but onelyonly the elect. 2. That when he asserts, That all the infants of visibls professors are taken into covenant in respect of outward priviledges. 1, He never p. 219shewes what those outward priviledges are. 2. Nor any where …lse that I know, instanceth in any but the initiall seal, which is now no other than baptism, and this then being the antecedent in his Enthymeme, his argument is this, All infants of believers are taken into Covenant in respect of the outward priviledge of Baptism, Ergo, they are to be baptized; which is all one as to say, They are to be baptized, Ergo they are to be baptized, unlesse he mean they are taken into covenant de facto, and so his assertion should be, They are already baptized (wich is false) and if his inference be, Ergo they are to be baptized, his argument is, They are already baptized, Ergo they are to be baptised, which were to assert Anabaptism. 3. Nor doth Mr. M. tell where that covenant is that promiseth the outward Church-priviledge of an initiaall seal, nor by whose act they are taken into…covenant, or who takes them into covenant. 4. If he understand it of the outward covenant, meaning thereby the outward administration, he useth, the word improperly by a Trope, and so speaks obscurely in his main conclusion on which his whole dispute r…sts, which is contrary to Logick Rules, and …ll right Disputation. Besides, he doth but trifle thus in his arguings, I…fants of believers are taken into covenan…, that is the outward covenant, that is the outward administration, that is (now) Baptism, Ergo they are to be baptized, which is to prove the same …y the same. Lastly, if that speech of his be true, That in respect of outward priviledges the same is to be said of visible members both parents and infants under the New Testament, in this poynt of being in covenant, as was to be said of visible members in the former administration▪ whether Jewes and their children, or Proselytes and their children, it is apparent to me that he makes the covenant now and then not onelyonly the same for substance, but also in respect of administrations contrary to his first conclusion. For what are those outward priviledges in respect of which they are the same but outward administrations? And if so, his speech is in my apprehension professed Judaism opposite to the Apostles determination in the Synod Acts 15. And yet Mr. M. tells me he endevours in all this to speak as clearly as he can possibly, which makes me hopeless of any thing but confusedness in his writing, when after I had distinctly opened the various senses of his terms, yet he wilfully declines making answer in which of those senses I should take his words, and when he takes on him to explain his meaning, he takes on him to explain other terms then were in his conclusion, and yet his explications are as dark as his terms which he would explain, and in the upshot his second conclusion can have no other sense consistent with his own Hypothesis but such as asserts Judaism, or being cōceived to be the antecedent of his Enthymeme, is the same with the conclusion of it, which is meerly to trifle, proving the same by the same: which course how unfit it is for him who is to dispute, I leave it to them to judge who know what belongs to Scolastick exercise.

Mr. M. next chargeth me with holding no more promises for believers children in reference to the covenant, then to the children of Turks. And yet page 119. he doth in these words maintain the same which I do. I joyn with you that it is an error to say, that all Infants of believers indefinitely are under the saving graces of the covenant, for although I find abundance of promises in the Scripture of Gods giving saving graces unto the posterity of his people, and that experience teacheth us, that God uses to continue the Church in their posterity, and that Gods p. 220election lies more among their seed then others, yet neither to Iew nor Gentile was the covenant so made at any time, that the spirituall part and grace of the covenant should be conferred upon them all, which is directly to contradict the usuall plea of Pedobaptists, that the covenant of grace is made to every believer and his seed, and particularly the words of the Directory, The p…omise is made to believers and their seed ▪ seeing the covenant of grace is made to none but those on whom the spirituall part is conferred, nor can (without wresting the words from the plain meaning according to the Grammar sense) the spech of the Directory be understood of any other promise than saving grace.

Mr. M. and with him Mr. G. Vindic. Paedob, pag. 12. charge me, that in my judgement believers children are not actually belonging to the Covenant or Kingdom of God, but onelyonly in possibility; that they belong to the Kingdome of the Devil actually, which calumnies are re…u…ed in my Apologie, Sect. 14.

Next, he speaks thus to me: But say you, to make them actually members of the visible Church, is to overthrow the definitions of the visible Church, which Protestant Writers use to give, because they must be all Christians by profession. I reply, It overthrowes it not at all, for they all include the infants of such professors, as the visible Church among the Iewes did include their infants male (and female too, lest you say that circumcision made them members.)

Answer. Though Protestant Divines do hold many of them, that infants belong to the visile Church, yet they put them not in their definitions. There are many definitions cited by me in the first part of this Review Sect. 14. in which infants are not included, not in that definition of the Church (visible) which Baxter plain Scripture proofe, page 82 saith, Certainly all Divines are agreed, That it is a Society of persons separated from the world to God, or called out of the world, &c, Not in that of Dr. Featly Dipper dipped, pag. 4. A true particular visible Church is a particular Congregation of men professing the true faith, known by the two markes above mentioned, the sincere preaching of the Word, and the due administration of the Sacraments. Norton Resp. ad Appollon▪ pag. 10. Immota Thesis. Idem illud in professione constituit Eccl…si…m visibilem, quod internâ suâ naturâ constituit Ecclesiam mysticam: i. e. Fides us que adeo luculenta est haec veritas ut vel invito Bellarmino lib. de Eccles▪ milit. etiam à praecipuorum inter Pontificos calamis excidisse videatur. The Assembly Answer to the reasons of the seven dissenting brethren, pag. 48. Precog 1. The whole Church of Christ is but one made up of the collection and aggregation of all who are called by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. himself in his Sermon at the Spittle April 16▪52. pag. 15.▪ Secondly, that part of the Church which is upon earth in regard that the very life and being of it, and of all the members of it, lye in internall graces, which cannot be seen, in that respect the Church of Christ is called an invisible Church: But now as the said Church and members doe make a profession of their faith and obedience sensibly to the eyes and ears of others, in that respect it is called a visible Church: But the visible is not one Church and the invisible another, but meerly the same Church under severall denominations, the one from their constituting graces, the other from the external profession of them. The Church visible of the Jewes consisted of the whole nation, and was visible otherwise than the Christian, and therefore the definition of p. 221the Christian Church visible is different from that of the Jewish Church visible, and infants included in the definition of the one are not included in the definition of the other.

Mr. M. saith, I add also Baptisme now (as well as circumcision of old) is a re… all though implicite profession of the Christian faith.

Answer. Baptism of it self (I mean dipping in water) is no reall explicite or implicite profession of faith, but onelyonly when it is done with consent of the baptized to that end: Otherwise the Indians driven into the water by the Spaniards against their wills, should be prof…ssors of the Christian faith. The like may be said of circumcision.

Mr M omitting my next reason, [That to make infants [visible Church-members, is to make a member of the visible Church, to whom the note of a member of the visible Church doth not agree] saith thus to me: But say you, Infants are onelyonly passive, and do nothing whereby they may be denominated visible Christians. I answer, Even as much as the infants of the Iewes could do of old, who yet in their dayes were visible members.

I reply, It is so; yet that which made a visible Church member in the Jewish Church, is not enough to make a visible Church member in the Christian Church, which consists not of a whole nation known by circumcision, genealogies, outward policy, national meetings, family dwelling, &c. But of so many persons as are called out of the world by the preaching of the word to professe the faith of Christ. Mr. M. adds, Yea (say you) further it will follow, that there may be a v…sible Church which consists onelyonly of infants of believers. I answer, no more now than in the time of the Iewish Church; it's possible, but very im…roble, that all the men and women should die and leave onelyonly infants behind them, and it's far more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onelyonly of hypocrites.

Answer. It is somewhat more possible, or more probable, there should be onelyonly infants left in a Church of a house, town, or village; than in the Church which consists of a numerous nation, as the Iewish Church did: nor is it unlikely; …uch things h…ve happened in sweeping plagues. And if it be farre more probable that a Church in the Anabaptists way may consist onelyonly of hypocrites, the s…me with more probability may be said of a Church gathered in the Pedob…pists way, in which there is of necessi…y so much ignorance in matters of Religion, all being admitted Church-members afore they know or can know anything of Christ. Jam sumus ergo pares. But if it be possible, as it is granted, that a Church visible of Christians may consist only of infants, it wil follow that there may be a visible Church of Christians in which there is no one professor of the faith, contrary ro the defini…ion of a visible Church, That it is a company of professors of faith, and they shal be visible Church-members, who neither by themselves or any for them, do any thing which is apparent to the understanding by the meditation of sense, whereby Christianity is expressed. The case is not the same of the Iewish Church and the Christian; for the Christian Church is any company though but of two or three gathered together in Christs name, Matth. 18.20. But the Iewish Church was the whole Congregation of Israel known otherwise, as h…th been said, than the Christian.

Next, Mr M. against these words of mine [It is also true that we are not to account infants [of believers] (which he omits in repetition) to belong p. 222to God [before God] (which he likewise omits in repetition) in respect of election [from eternity] (omitted by him) or promise of grace [in Christ] (omitted also) of present estate of in-being in Christ, or future estate by any act of Science, or faith without a particular relation: for there is no generall declaration of God, that the infants of present believers indefinitely all or some either are elected to life, or are in the covenant of grace in Christ, either in respect of present in-being or future estate, excepts two things- 1. This makes nothing against that visible Church-membership be pleads for.

Answer. If that visible Church-membership he pleads for, arise from the covenant of grace in Christ (as hitherto hath been the plea) nor can they shew any other) then they are not visible Church-members who have not an estate in that covenant which is the cause of it: For take away the cause and …he effect ceaseth, and then the visible Church-membership of existing infants of present believers is overthrown, sith the cause of it appears not. And if they are not to be accounted by act of faith to belong to God in respect of promise of grace in Christ, and the Minister is to dispense the seals by a judgment of faith, as Mr M. holds in his Sermon, pag. 47, in his Defence, pag. 111. then there being no act of faith concerning existing infants of present believers, they are not to be baptized.

2. Saith Mr. M. I retort rhe Argument upon your self, and dare boldly affirm, that by this argument no visible Church, or all the visible professors of any Church, are to be accounted to belong to God either in respect of election from eternity, or promise of grace, or present state of in-being in Christ, &c. w…thout a paricular revelation, because there is no declaration of God, that present visible professors are indefinitely all or some either elected to life, or are in the covenant of grace in Christ either in respect of present in-being or future estate: look by what distinction you will answer this: For visible professors who are grown men, the same will serve for infants of believers.

Answ. If Mr. M. had put in these words of mine, By any act or science of faith, I should have granted the same might be said of visible professors grown men, which I had said of infants. But this no whit hur…s our Tene…t or practice who do not baptize grown persons because by no act of faith, or science we know them to be in the covenant of grace in Christ, but because by an act of faith we know Christ hath appointed Disciples appearing such by heir profession of faith, to be baptized by us, and by an act of science or experience by sense, we know them to be such whom we baptize. Concerning whom though we cannot account them elect and in the covenant by an act of science, or faith without a particular revelation, yet we may by an act of certain knowledge mixt of science and prudence from sense of their visible profession know them to be serious, sober, understanding and free professors of Christianity, and by an act of faith from Christs institution of bapttizing professing disciples, know we ought to baptize them, and upon their profession out of charity, which believeth all things, hopeth all things, 1 Cor. 13.7. judge them by an act of opinion elect, and in the covenant of grace in Christ. None of all which can be said of existing infants of present believrs, and therfore we ought to pass no judgement on them in this thing, but suspend our judgmen…t, and act of baptizing concerning our selves with that comfortable hope which we have from indefinite promises.

p. 223Next Mr M. takes upon him to excuse some speeches of Mr. Cottons, against which I excepted in my Examen, pag▪ 42.4…. one was, That the covenant of grace is given to every godly man in his seed. Concerning which Mr M. tels me, That he takes M. Cottons meaning to be, that look as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the other godly Jewes were to their seed in respect of the covenant, that is every godly man to his seed now, except onelyonly in such things wherein these Patriarks were of Christ, in all other things wherein God promised to be the God of them and types their seed, godly parents may plead it as much for their seed now as, they could then, and what ever in…onveniences or absurdity you can seem to fasten upon Mr. Cotton, will equally reach to them also. As for example▪ suppose an Israelite should plead this promise for his seed, you'l demand if he plead it to his seed universally, that's false, add so of the rest of your inferences, look what satisfying answer an Israelite would give you the same would Mr. Cotton give, and as satisfyingly.

Answ. Mr Ms paraphrase of Mr. Cottons words, is such as no Rule of Crammar will warrant, the words being so expresse, It (the covenant of grace) was given to Christ, and in Christ to every godly man, Gen. 17.7. And in every godly man to his seed: where the same covenant of grace, not an uncertain promise of any thing whatsoever, is said to be given to every godly mans seed, which is said to be given to Christ, and to every godly man, and in every godly man, using the same pronounce which was used concerning Christ: no… is it said, that it might be pleaded by every godly man, but it was given, which in plain construction is mean… of the same grant which was made to Christ, and to a godly man. 2. Nor perhaps would Mr Cotton have owned this explication of his words. 3. If he had, they had not been true, for every▪ godly Gentile now cannot plead the same for his seed now, which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and some other Is…aelites could then, (because God made such peculiar promises to them, particularly to Abraham, G…n 17.4, 5, 6, 7, 8. in respect of their seed) …s he hath made to any be…ieving Genti…e now. For much of that he promised then was out of respect, to the future comming of Christ from them, which being accomplished, the reason of those promises, and of circumcision and other rites ceaseth. And yet the promises were not then so universally to them and their seed, but that God took himself not ingaged to be the God of many of them, nor ar… Gentile-believers seed now Abrahams seed till they believe as he did, and therfore in explic…tion of Mr. M. there can be no good sa…i…faction so as to verifie Mr Cottons words.

The other speech of Mr Cotton, that God will have some of every god…y mans seed stand before him for ever, he confesseth is not to be justified, if it be meant in reference to election and everlasting life, tha… every godly man shall have some of his seed infallibly saved, nor doth he think Mr Cotton meant so: but for his part he thinks he only added to that promise made to Jonadabs children, Jerem 35. that God would always beare a mercifull respect unto the posterity of his servants, according to that promise, Exo. 20.5. I wil shew mercy to thousands of them that love me and keep my commandements. And that being his scope (as he thinks it was) I need not to have kept such a stir about it.

Ans. The words in the plainest sense they bare, had that sense which Mr. M. counts unjustifiable, nor can they be construed in such an indefinite manner as Mr. M. conceives, the good promised being no lesse than standing before God for p. 224ever: which how ever it allude to Ionadabs promise, yet is not to be understood in the sense made to him, nor in any other sense now than that of eternall salvation, that I know, and by his declaration should belong to some of every godly mans seed determinately. So that what ever his scope were, his words were likely to be a stumbling-block to many who are too much taken with his dictates, and the place in which I examined them leading me to it, and both Mr. Cottons letter to me, acquainting me with his Dialogue of the grounds of Infant-baptism, of which the supposed interest in the covenant is the chief, and the desire I have to make learned men more cautelous in venting such passages as may occasion error, knowing how Luthers unwary speeches were the seed of Antinomianism, and other learned mens writings have misled, most Divines adhering pertinaciously to leading men, provoking me thereto, I did and still do think it was necessary I should say what I said about those speeches.

Mr. M. tells me, pag, 116, You doe but lose time and waste paper in endeavouring to confute what was never asserted by me, viz. That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seede that the infants of believers are so within the covenant of grace as to be elected, and to have all the spirituall privileges of the covenant belong to them. But this he suspects to fasten on him against my own light: from which I cleared my self, Apolog. Sect. 9. He then interprets his own words of infants being within the covenant of grace as visible professors are quà visible (which speech is shewed false before) they are to be accounted to belong to God as well as their parents, viz. by a visible profession they are made free according to Abrahams Copy, viz. in a visible priviledge for their posterity But he leaves out those passages which I alledged, saying, The covenant of s…lvation is com… to his hous, that in the first cōclusion it's said, The covenant is the same, which he means of saving graces, and then saith, and children belong to IT, which can demonstrate no other than the same covenant, that is made a part of the Gospel preached to Abraham. To which I might add, that in his Sermon, page 40. he saith The text not onelyonly shewing that they are within the covenant, but also that a right to baptism is the consequence of being within the covenant, which covenant is made by him the covenant of salvation, pag. 16 and in his Defence pag. 88. We are enquiring after the salvation of them to whom a promise of salvation is made., and hence infers the salvation of infants; of believers dying in infancy, which were frivolous if he did not conceive, Gen. 17.7. to promise salvation to believers infants: and page 98. counts it absurd that in a covenant of grace temporall blessings should be ratified by the seal of it. So that either M. M. heeded not his own speeches, or confounded things much different, or said and unsaid the same thing, if that were not his meaning which I conceived. And I must still professe that his setting down first distinctly the identity of the covenant consisting in saving graces, and then affirming Infants of believers to belong to it, and not understanding it of the same Covenant, hath the shew of juggling tending to deceive not to instruct the Reader. There are more speeches produced by me to shew, that if he did speak consonantly to other Writers and sayings, he meant as I interpreted his words, two of which he chuseth to vindicate, one the proposition of the Directory; (The promise is made to belivers and their seed,) which how frivolously it is interpreted by Mr. G. and Mr. M. is shewd in my Apol. Sect. 9. in my Addition p. 225to my Apol. to Mr. Bailee, Sect. 3. To which I add, that in the Assemblies Confession of Faith it is said, ch. 7. art 3 that in the covenant of grace God promiseth to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his holy Spirit, ch. 14. art. 2. The principall acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternall life, by vertue of the covenant of Grace, ch. 17. art. 2. The perseverance of the Saints depends upon the nature of the covenant of grace. The other speech he would clear, is thus by me expressed▪ Baptism seals onelyonly the promise of saving grace, remission of sins, &c. So in the Directory of Baptism, That it is the seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternall: and after, And that the seed and posterity of the faithfull born within the Church have by their birth interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it In the Rules of direction in the Ordinance Octob. 20. 1645. That the Sacraments are seals of the covenant of grace in the blood of Christ. And therefore if there be not a promise of saving grace to infants, in vain are they baptized, the seal is put to a blank, as some use to speak. To this saith Mr. M. I utterly deny your consequence, that unlesse there be absolute promises of saving grace to infants, the seal is set to a blank: For give me leave but to put the same case; First for the …nfants of the Jewes, was the seal put to a blank with them, or had they all promises of saving graces? Secondly, let me put the same case in grown men, who make an external visible profession, and thereupon are admit…ed to baptism, can any man say, that all the saving graces of the covenant, or the spirituall part of it is promised to all visible professors? Is it not abundantly known, that in all ages even in the best times, even in the Apostles times multitudes were baptized, to whom God yet never gave saving graces, and therefore never promised them? for had he made a promise, he would have performed it.

Answer. To the words in my Examen (the seal is put to a blank) was added, as some speak, which I did to intimate that it was Paedobaptists phraseology, not mine, and that they counted this an absurdity, not that I did so. So that my consequence was, it being counted frequently in their writings an absurdity that the seal should be put to a blank, that is, that baptism should be administred to them that had not the promise, and it seals onelyonly the promise of saving grace, if the promise of saving grace belong not to the infants baptized, then in vain are they baptized according to Paedobaptists Hypothesis, for the seal of the promise is put to them to whom it is confessed the promise is not made. Mr. M himselfe in his Sermon, pag. 43. Infants are capable of receiving the holy Ghost, of union with Christ, of adoption, of forgivenesse of sins, of regeneration, of everlasting life, all which things are signified and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme. The covenant then sealed is the covenant of these saving graces, which if it belong not to infants baptized, but another outward covenant, in vain are they baptized, for they have not the covenant which baptisme seals. And that this is the sense of other Writers, appeares by the words of Ampsing. Diolog. eontra Anabapt. p. 195. Dico ergo: Omnibus fidelibus baptismum competere cum ipsorum semine tam mulieribus quam viris tam infantibus quam adulti…: horum omnium enim se Deum fore declarat. Deus, his remissionem peccatorum in Christi sanguine; his mentis renovatio…ē per spiritum sanctum; his vitā aeternam promittit ac regnum coelorum: quare quo que ipsis obsignabitur hac Dei gratia. p. 226Ames. Bellarm. enervat. tom. 3. l. 1. c. 4. ch. 9. Protest. Circu…cisio à primâ su… institutione habuit promissionem illam annexam quâ nulla est major: Ero Deus tuus & seminis tui post te. Gen. 17. quam Christus ita interpretatur, Matth. 22. ut vitam aeternam illa doceat contineri, & Paulus Ephes. 2.12. Ostendit spem vivam ex illâ pendere. I wil add the words of Calvin, Epist. 229. which are in stead of many othe…s, both because of the great eminency of the man, being accounted almost an Oracle by many of my Antagonists, and because they are full to the present purpose: they are thus in English. This principle is still to be held, That baptism is not conferred on infants that they may be made sons and heirs of God: but because they are already with God reckoned in that place and degree; he grace of adoption is sealed in their flesh Otherwise the Anabaptists should rightly keep them from baptism: For unlesse there should agree to them the truth of the outward sign, it would be a meer profanation to call them to the participation of the sign it selfe. Moreover, if any deny baptism to them, our answer is ready, that they are already of the flock of Christ, and of the family of God, because the covenant of salvation which God maketh with believers, is common also to the sons, as also the words sound, I will be thy God and of thy seed after thee, Gen 17.7. unlesse this promse went before, by which God adopteth the children of believers not yet born▪ it is certain baptism is ill bestowed on them.

Which words do plainly express the covenant of salvation which is made by God with believers, is common to the sons, that so it is meant, Gen. 17.7, that with God they are afore baptism reckoned in the place and degree of sons and heirs of God, who adopteth them not yet born, that unlesse the truth of the outward sign (that is according to Mr. Ms. adoption, regeneration, remission of sins, &c.) did agree to them, it were profanation to call infants of believers to the participation of the sign, and Anabaptists should rightly keep them from Baptism. Therefore Calvin thought the covenant of saving grace Gen. 17.7. made by God to believers infan…s (which Mr. M. disclaism) and otherwise infant-baptism is profanation, and it is rightly opposed. Yea, the shifts that are used to free their doctrine of infants interest in the covenant, and the sealing of it from the difficulty of verefying it against the exceptions before alledged, do all seem to suppose the covenant in which infants have interest, is the covenant of saving grace. As when Mr. Baxters plain Scripture, &c. pag. 223. will have Baptisme seal onelyonly the conditionall promise Mr. Philips vind. pag. 37. expresseth the sealing by offering. Mr. Davenport's Confess. of Faith, p 39. maketh the benefits of the covenant not to be offered in the Sacraments, but to be exhibited onelyonly to true believers. Mr. Cotton's grounds of Bapt. pag. 70, The covenant of grace doth not give them saving grace at all, but onelyonly offereth it, and seals what it offereth. Dr Homes, that the administration of the covenant of grace, belongs to believers children though not the efficacie. Dr. Twisse, that Infants are in the covenant of grace in the judgement of charity, and that baptism seals regeneration, &c. not conferred, but to be conferred. Dr. Th Goodwin, that they are to be judged in the covenant of grace by parcels though not all in the lump, yet all make the promise, I will be the God of thy seed, applied to infants of believers… contain the promise of saving grace, and therefore I had great reason to conceive Mr. M. so meant his second conclusion. As for the two cases he puts, I neither grant all the Infants of the Jewes, nor visible Christian p. 227professors adult had all saving graces who were circumcised or rightly baptized by the Apostles, nor do I say they were sealed with the seal of the covenant, it's the Pedobaptists expression not mine, except where I use the term to express their mind▪ nor do I count it an absurdity to say the seal was and is to be put to a blank, that is, that those should be baptized to whom the promise of saving grace is not made, when I speak after mine own mind. But in the place of my Examen pag. 46. in which I alleged that as an absurdity, that the seal should be put to a blank, it was not because I took it so to be, but because the Paedobaptists so count it, as Mr. Calvins words before recited shew.