Anti-Paedobaptism Part 3, Section 33
SECT. XXXIII. That it is no error as Mr Baxter calls it, but a Truth, That the Covenant of grace is made onelyonly to the elect.
BUt that I may acquit my self of Mr. Bs charge of errors in these points, I shall answer first what he saith about my fifth imagined error, because as Mr. B. saith, Appendix to his Aphorisms, pag. 66. It is in vain to enquire whether the Sacraments do seal absolutely or conditionally, till you first know well what it is that they seal. And here I think it needfull to set down Mr Bs words against Mr, Bl. in his Apol. p. 103. Sect. 52. Arg. 17. That doctrine which signifieth an unsealed covenant for giving right to the covenant of grace, is unsound. But such is Mr. Blakes, therefore no Scripture can be brought to prove such an outward covenant of Gods: And it is against the common reason and custome of men, that a second covenant should not be drawn to convey right to the seal of the first covenant, seeing right to covenants seals go together, and if there must be another covenant to give right to that, then by the same reason there must be another to give right to that, and another to that, and so in infinitum. To the Antecedent it is apparent that Mr. Bl. distinguisheth ex parte Dei between the outward and inward covenant. It is probable that he thus distributes them from the blessings promised, whereof some are inward, and some outward: for though he explain not himself fully, yet I know no other sense that it will bear. It is evident that his outward covenant hath no seal. For it is a covenant de conferendis …igillis. If therefore it have a seal, it is either the same which is promised, or some other: other I never heard of. They no where tell us what is the seal of their outward covenant: The same it cannot be, for the same thing cannot be the materia foederis, or the legacie it self, or the benefit given, and the seal too of that covenant whereby it is given. And pag. 6…. Mr Bls common phrase is, that they are [in the outward covenant] and what that is, I cannot tell, and then proves, that God makes no such outward covenant. From whence I inferr, 1, That Mr. B. had not cause to blame me for not disdaining Mr Blakes meaning when he understands him no better, 2, Nor to magnifie his writing so much, in which he finds so many flawes. 3. Nor to rest so much upon an imagined ground of mens right to baptism by Gods promise or covenant grant which the che…fest assertors of Paedobaptism cannot well tell what it is. 4. That by Mr Bs judgment there is no such outward covenant of God, as Mr Bl. and other Paedobaptists infer infant-baptism from▪ and for the inward covenant, or covenant of saving grace, Mr M. Mr G. and others, disclaim it as made to all the infants of believers. Let us view what Mr B. saith about the covenant sealed by baptism and its sealing. In his Confut. of my six imagined errors plain Scripture proof, &c. pag. 223, he thus speaks, Error …. Mr T. holdeth that the Covenant whereof Baptism is the seal, is the absolute covenant of grace made onelyonly to the elect. Confutation. Many more mistakes he utters in the way to this about the Covenant. This he publickly pleaded for in his Dispute, and alledged Dr. Twisse as affirming the covenant of grace to be absolute. To which I then answered, 1. That to thrust in mens names and words, when in disputation we are enquiring what the Scripture saith, was unseasonable and diverting. 2. That Dr. Twisse doth constantly in all his writings affirm, That the promises of remission of sin and salvation are conditionall, though the promise of the grace [I will take the hard heart out of their bodies &c] is absolute. This I dare affirm as having read six of Dr Twisse his books again and again. And then he adds somewhat of Dr. Twisse, which I leave to others to answer as they shall see cause.
Answer. That Baptism is the seal of the covenant is not my expression, except when I speak in answer to Paedobaptists according to their mind, and in what seal and manner I allow it, I have said before. What I said of Dr Twisse in the disputation, was neither unseasonable nor diverting, nor untrue. The dispute was (so far as I can gather from my memory and the notes I have of the dispute) whe…her the words Deut. 29.13. did prove that God did make the covenant …here with all that are said to enter into covenant, which I …enied, and Mr. B. endeavoured to prove from the words [and that he may be to thee a God] and from Deut. 30.6▪ where he promiseth to circumcise the heart of them and of their seed; which I proved could not be, sith the covenant of grace is made only to the elect, and it is absolute in that promise, I will write my lawes in their hearts, which is the same with circumcising the heart, and so could not be meant of all that entred into covenant, Deut. 29.10, 11, 12 (which Mr B. since acknowledge…h in his letter to Mr. Bedford when he saith thus, The Text seemes plainly to speak of their seed not in their infant estate but in their adult, Deut. 30.) but of the elect onelyonly, and in respect of that promise the covenant of grace is absolute, which I thought seasonable, no way diverting from the business to confirm by Dr. Twisse his authority, whose tenent Mr B. confesseth was, That the promise of the first grace [I will take the hard heart out of their bodies, &c.] is absolute. And to shew that I did Dr. Twisse no wrong, I shall alledge some words of his which I find in his Animadversions on Corvinus his Defence of Arminius against Tilenus, p. 235 Negamus Deum pacisci foedus gra…iae cum omnibus & singulis: dicimus hoc fieri solum cum electis: that is, We deny that God makes the covenant of peace with all and each, we say it to be made onelyonly with the elect. pag. 346. At foedus gratiae absolutum est; quod & nube testimoniorm divinorum comprobatum damus: that is, But the covenant of grace is absolute, which also we prove by a cloud of testimonies. But Mr. B. having given Dr Twisse a lash, on the by falls thus on me.
But Mr. T. his answer to me was, That the promise of saving grace is not conditional, and that though some parts of the covenant be conditionall, yet it is all together that is called the covenant, the leading promise being not conditionall, therefore the covenant is not conditionall, and that it was a grosse palpable error of me to say, That the promise of saving benefits was made to infants that were not …lest.
Answer. My answer is the same now that it was then, and having upon occasion of this charge, reviewed the notes of the dispute, which though very imperfect, I have yet by me, I find not but that in the greatest part of the dispute, I answered Mr. B. rightly, though he have most shamefully and unbrotherlike misrepresented me to the world, and made a noyse in the world as if he had driven me to gross absurdities, which having acquitted my self from in my Pr… cursor, Sect. 17. he replies nothing to that Section, which I take to be a tacite confession of his unworthy abusing of me, And I do think it necessary to tell the world, that I find so little of brotherly love to me, or common ingenuity in his insolent carriages towards me at the Dispute, and his relations of me and of the Dispute in print, that I think I should have found better dealing from a Jesuite than from him. And though I take him to be a godly man, and an excellent Preacher and Writer in practicall points, yet I find him to be but a superficiall Disputer, and a slight interpreter of Scripture. But to the point.
Four things Mr. B. it seems mislikes in my answer, 1. That I said, That the promise of saving grace is not conditionall. To declare my self more fully, it is requisite I should shew what promise of saving grace I make not conditionall. There is the saving grace of redemption, regeneration, justification, remission of sins, adoption, glorification. The condition imagined as presupposed to the promise of saving grace, that is, to the fulfilling of it, is either the well using naturall abilities, as foregoing the promise of conversion and regeneration; or faith and repentance as foregoing justification, remission of sins, adoption, glorification. The promise of saving grace may be said to be conditionall in respect of these later saving graces, and the conditions mentioned, yet in respect of the promisers intention and act in the event, certain, necessary, and infallibly to be performed by the person to whom the promise is made, and in this sense I grant the promise of saving graces conditionall, that is, that God hath promised to none the saving graces of justification, remission of sins, adoption, but on condition of true repentance and faith; nor glorification but on condition of perseverance therein: yet that these conditions are not uncertain in the event, or left to the persons to whom the promise is made, to do by themselves, but by Gods intention and actings certainly to be accomplished; or it may be said to be conditionall, that is, …o as that the condition of any of these graces is made the well using naturall abilities, or that the conditions of these later saving graces are uncertain in the event notwithstanding the promisers intention and acting, and thus I deny the promise of saving grace to be conditionall. More briefly, I deny the promise of regeneration and conversion, to presuppose some well using our naturall abilities, or that justification, remission of sins, adoption, glorification, are promised upon condition of our repentance, faith, obedience, perseverance, left by God to be performed by us, and not promised as certain in the event, which is the Arminian sense, yet deny that the promise of justification, remission of sins, is absolute, so as that God promiseth that an elect person shall be justified, or have remission of sins without a fore faith, which is charged on the Antinomians.
The second thing which Mr. B. mislikes in my Answer is, That though some parts of the Covenant be conditional, yet it is all together that is called the Covenant. But this speech if it be liable to exception, Mr. B. must except against the holy Ghost, who doth expresly call all together the covenant, Heb. 8.10. saying, This is the Covenant which I will make, and having recited all together, he adds, v. 13. in that he saith a new covenant. And the like is Heb. 10.16.
The third thing misliked in my answer is, And the leading promise being no… conditionall, therefore the covenant is not conditional ▪ But there is no just cause of excepting against this, sith …t is usuall, and that according to a Logick Rule to determinate from the more famous part, or chief part, as a visible Church is called Holy, or of Saints, even in Scripture, 1 Cor. 1.2. from the better part, a field of corn where is much tare. Do not Paedobaptists usually call the covenant Gen. 17. the eovenant of grace, though there be other promises than of saving grace, and what promise is made of saving grace there▪ is made under the covert of words expressing other things. And to shew that there is reason for what I said, I urge, 1. That the promise of writing the Lawes of God in the heart, Heb. 8.10▪ is not onelyonly the leading promise, but also it is the comprehensive promise, including or inferring all the rest, for therefore God will be a God to them, be mercifull to their unrighteousness, because he will write his Lawes in their heart; to those and those onelyonly he promiseth the later to whom he promised the former. Yea, it seemeth to be the principall thing God aimed at in the new Covenant, to assure that he would not write his lawes in stone as he did before, but write them in their heart. 2. That where Zacharias mentions Gods holy Covenant, and the oath he sware unto Abraham, Luke ….72, 73. he puts it to be in this (which I take to be absolute) that he would give to us, that being delivered from the hand of our enemies, without fear we should serve him in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of our life, v. 73, 74 75.
The fourth thing misliked in my answer is, that I said, That it was a gross palpable error of Mr. B. to say that the promise of saving benefits was made to Infants that were not elect. If I understand Mr. M. he counted it a gross error, when he disclaimed this asser…ion, That the covenant of saving grace is made to believers and their naturall seed. Defence of his Sermon, pag. 116. and Mr. G. when in his Vindic. P…dob p. 12. he said of this conclusion, that infants are taken into covenant with their parents in respect of saving graces, You know the conclusion in that sense is so manifestly against Protestants principles and experience, that no Protestant can hold it But Mr. B. it's like will not be convinced by mens sayings, let us try what we can do by Arguments
1. The promise of saving benefits is made onelyonly to those to whom saving benefits are bestowed: But to elect infants onelyonly they are bestowed. Ergo. The Major is manifest to them that acknowledge God to be true and faithfull, it being manifest falshood and unfaithfulness to promise and not to perform. But it is certain by experience and Scripture that God saves none but the Elect. Therefore it is a gross and palpable error as charging God with lying to say, that his promise of saving benefits is made to infants not elect.
12. This is proved directly from the Apostles words, Rom. 9.6, 7, 8. which also strengthens the former argument, where he concludes that the promises of God must be understood as made to them only to whom they were performed, otherwise the word of God should fall, which he abhorres as blasphemy. But I argue further thus.
To them onelyonly is the promise of saving benefits made, who are children of that promise, that God would be a God to them in respect of saving benefits, for to be the children of the promise there is manifestly meant of those to whom the promise of being God is meant, Gen. 17.7. as is proved before, Sect. 28, 29. which the Apostle in that chapter understands of saving benefits, which I think will not be denied; if it were, it might be proved from v. 8, &c. But the elect onelyonly are children of the promise, this is proved before, Sect. 28, 29, and might be proved from v. 11. Ergo.
3. I further argue from the same place; If any other than the elect infants had the promise of saving benefits made to them; then all the naturall seed of Abraham, for no infants besides the elect, had more promises of saving benefits than they: But they all had not the promise of saving benefits made to them, the Apostle determines, that the promise was to Ishmael not Esau, but onelyonly to Isaac and Jacob, That the purpose of God according to election might stand, or be of him that calleth, whom he will for the seed, v. 11. Therefore the promise of saving benefits is made onelyonly to elect infants.
To the Allegation of this text, I find something said by Mr. B. in his plain Scripture proof. &. Part. 2. chap. 1. 1. There is no strong appearance of contradiction in this to what we have taught. For I willingly acknowledge, that they are not therefore the children of God, because they are the seed of Abraham, or others that were godly, but because they are the children of the promise.
But Mr. B. c…ean mistakes the Apostles speech, for he conceives that all the naturall seed of Abraham were yeelded to be the children of God, but not because children of the flesh, bu… because children of the promise, as if he granted the thing, but denied the reason, whereas the Apostle denies the thing it self, affirming, that all the seed of Abraham, were not the children of God, Rom. 9.7, 8, and contradisting the children of the promise to the children of the flesh, which were non-sense if they were the same, and no distinction or opposition between them. As if a man say, not all natives but free-men are Citizens, he supposeth all natives are not freemen, and denies all natives who are not free-men, to be Citizens
Mr B. adds, I pray you observe, 1. That which the Apostle here pleadeth, is, That salvation was not by the Covenant tied to all Abrahams seed. To which I reply, This grants what I would evi…ce, that the promise of saving benefites was not to all Abrahams seed, but only to the elect of them. But yet sa…th Mr. B. he denieth not but Church-membership did for the time past belong to the generallity of them. Now it is not the certain salvation, but the Church-membership of Infants that we are disputing for (in regard of the individuals
Answer. Though it be the Church-membership of infants which Paedobaptists dispute for, and not the certain salvation, yet they would inferre their Church-membership from that Covenant which was a Covenant of salvation as it was Evangelicall. And this Mr. B. must yeild, who in the words forecited against Mr. Bl. denies an outward covenant giving right to the Seals, and asserts, A right to Baptism as it is a benefit given directly by God from his promise, or covenant Apol. against Mr Bl. p. 80▪ which is no other than of saving grace, by which if salvation be not tied to all Abrahams seed, then that covenant is not the ground of their Church-membership, and right to the initiall seal, and consequently not to our infants, for take away the Cause, the effect is removed, & so this text is directly against infant-baptism and Churchmembership. Mr. B. adds,
2. The Apostle disputeth not against the salvation or Church-membership of every one of Abrahams seed; (for many of his seed were after this saved) but against the salvation of the whole seed or posterity conjunctim. But now Anabaptists dispute against the Church-membership visible of any infants.
Answer. If the Church-membership visible of the whole seed or posterity conjunctim of Abraham be asserted (as it is by Mr. B.) from that covenant which the Apostle denies to belong to the whole seed or posterity conjunctim (which Mr B. grants) he disputeth for the Anabaptists against the imagined visible Church-membership of all infants of true believers.
3. Saith Mr. B. That which the Apostle mainly drives at, is, that men are not therefore saved because they are Abrahams carnall seed (and consequently not because they are the carnall seed of any other. And I say so too with all my heart. But the Apostle doth not say, or mean, that Abrahams seed should not be saved: for they shall again be called, and so all Israel shall be saved, Rom. 11) But onelyonly that they are saved, not because they are his seed, bu… because they are children of the promise: And so say we, That the seed of the faithfull are Church-members, and Disciples and subjects of Christ, not properly or directly because they are their seed (for so they are no better than others: but because they are children of the promise; God having been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed; and having promised that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed: and that he will be mercifull to them, and will take thm to be a people to him, and he will be to them a God, and he hath pronounced them holy. Isaac was Abrahams seed, and Jacob his, and yet not saved because his seed directly and properly (yet remotely they were:) but because children of the promise.
Answer. Mr. B. in his pass…ge shewes, he neither understood the Apostles scope nor answer, but according to his overly manner of handling Texts, perverts both. I grant that from the Apostles words it followeth, That men are not therefore saved because they are Abrahams seed, and consequently not because they are the carnall seed of any other. But it is manifest, and acknowledged by all Interpreters almost I m…et with, that the Apostles scope is to answer an objection as the words v. 6. shew, That if the Jewes were rejected the word of God to Israel and Abrahams seed falls; which shews, that the objectors did not conceive God by covenant tied to save all Abrahams seed, and Israel, because he had by covenant tied himself to be a God to Abraham and his seed, Gen. 17.7. and therefore Paul did not rightly suggest, Rom. 9 1, 2, 3. as if they should be rejected. The clearing of …he consistency of these two things, the truth of Gods promise, Gen. 17.7., and the Apostles intimation that the Jewes should be cast away, was his scope, not that which Mr. B. imagines the Apostle mainly drives at, to shew why the Jewes are saved, for the Apostle supposeth that they should not be saved, and to maintain it, answers the objection. Whence also it may be perceived, that Mr. B. quite perverts the Apostles answer: For he makes it to be this, 1. That the Apostle doth not say, or mean, Abrahams seed should not be saved, whereas it's the very occasion of the objection, that he determined that a great part, or the body or people of the Jewes, who were Abrahams seed, were then rejected, as his words shew, Rom. 9.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 31▪ & 10, 1, 2, 3, 21. & 11.7.15.17.20, &c. and the Gentiles taken for Gods people in their stead: the searching of which was the great quarrell the Jewes had against Paul ▪ so that Mr B. makes Paul not to say that which he did teach, and plainly intimated in that very place. 2. That he onelyonly sayes, that Abrahams carnall seed were saved, not because they are his seed, but because they are children of the promise, which is both contrary to the Apostles suppositions, which is, that they are not saved, and that because they are not children of God, nor children of the promise, though children of the flesh, and impertinent to the removing of the objection concerning the rejection of the Jewes, how it could stand with Gods promise. For the answer as Mr. B. makes it, had no way justified Gods truth, but strengthened the objection, if it were supposed they were children of the promise, whom yet Paul counted for castawayes. Nor do the Apostles words say the children of the flesh are saved though not because they are Abrahams seed, but that they are not the children of God, who were onelyonly children of the flesh, not children of the promise, nor counted for the seed to whom the promise Gen. 17.7. was made at all, as it was Evangelicall. As for what Mr. B. alledgeth, That the Jewes shall be again called, and so all Israel be saved, Rom. 11. and therefore the Apostle doth not say, or mean, that Abrahams seed should not be saved, it is inconsequent, si…h the Apostle might and did suppose the present should not be saved though hereafter the Jewes shall; it followes on the contrary, he supposed the present Jewes should be rejected, because he speaks of the calling and salvation of the Jewes, was a thing future, yet not till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, in the mean time he saith, blindness happened to them in part. And what he saith, that God hath been pleased to make the promise to the faithfull and their seed, he neither sheweth where that promise is, nor do I know where to find it, nor where he promiseth to take them to be a people to him, and that he will be to them a God, and for what he alledgeth, that the seed of the righteous shall be blessed, and that God will be mercifull to them, how little they make for the visible Churchmembership of G…ntile believers infants, will be shewed in answering Chap. 21, 22,, of the first part of his Book. And for Gods pronouncing them holy, he is fully answered, Antipoedob, part 1. Sect. 23… &c. It followes in Mr. B.
4 And observe further, That Paul here speaks not a word against the priviledge of the infants whose parents deny not God, nor violate his Covenant, and fall not away. If any man should affirm, that all the infants of the faithfull so dying, are certainly saved, there is not a syllable in this text against him. For Paul onelyonly pleads, that if men fall away and prove unbelievers, God will not save them because Ahraham (or any other remote progenitor) was faithful. The covenant never intended this: But yet children of those that fall not away, or be not broken off for unbelief, do lose none of their priviledges, but may belong to the visible or invisible Church If any man should deny Christ, and yet think to be saved because they are Englishmen, or because their progenitors long since were faithfull; I should use to them Pauls words here. But what is this to those who do not deny Christ, and therefore are both Children of the flesh, and of the-promise? Besides, those the Apostle here excludeth, were aged unbelievers, so that this text hath not any colour either against baptism, or their Church membership.
Answer. There is little truth in this passage, Paul speaks, Rom. 9, 6. 7, 8, &c. against the being in the Covenant, Gen. 17.7. of Abrahams and Isaacs naturall seed, and therefore by consequence against the Church membership and Baptism of believers children by vertue of that covenant being made to them, and he excludes Esau before he was born, and therefore other than aged believers, and if Esau the son of Isaac, no Apostate, were out of the covenant, and declared so afore he was born, then had he died in infancy, he had not bin saved, and so there is more than a Syllable in this Text against him, who should affirm, That all the infants of the faithfull so dying, are certainly saved; for this Text affirms some infants of the most holy believers, are not in covenant, and if not in covenant, not certainly saved, but certainly reprobate. The children of those who fall not away, have no such priviledge, that they do certainly belong either to the invisible or visible Church. If there may be infant-children of believers who may be children of the flesh and not children of the promise, then the promise of saving benefits is not made to any other than the elect, for sure it is made to none other of other believers, if it be made onelyonly to the elect ones of Abraham and Isaac. I go on.
4. The promise which is in Christ Yea and Amen, is made onelyonly to the Elect, for it is not Yea and Amen to any other, sith it is not ratified & accomplished to any other. But the promise of saving benefits is in Christ Yea and Amen, for so are as many promises as are in Christ, 2 Cor. 1.20. and such is the promise of saving benefits. Ergo.
5. Those promises which were made to Christ, were made onelyonly to the Elect, for whether Christ personall be meant the promises were made to him onelyonly for those whom he represents, and they are onelyonly the elect, or Christs mysticall body that is his Church they are the elect onelyonly: But the promise of saving benefits made to Christ, Gal. 3.16. Ergo.
6. The promise which is of the Covenant confirmed unto Christ, is onelyonly to the elect: But such is the promise of saving benefits, Gal 3.17. Ergo.
7. The promise which is of eternall life ▪ is made onelyonly to the elect: But such is the promise of saving benefits, Tit. 1.2. Ergo.
8. To whom the promise of saving benefits is made, are Heirs of the Promise: But they are only to the elect, for to the Heirs of promise Gods counsell is shewed to be immutable for their salvation, Heb. 6.17. But so it is onelyonly to the elect. Ergo.
9. Those promises by which we are made partakers of the Divine Nature, are made onelyonly to the elect: But such are the promises of saving benefits, 2 Pet. 1.4. Ergo.
10. The promise of that Covenant is made onelyonly to the elect, of which Christ is surety, for Christs sureti…hip engageth him to perform it, and he performs it onelyonly to the elect, therefore he is surety of the covenant onelyonly for the elect: But the promise of saving benefits is of that covenant of which Christ is surety, Heb. 7.22. Ergo.
11. That covenant which is confirmed by Christs blood, is made onelyonly with the elect, for it was shed for them onelyonly. But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Matth 26 28. Ergo.
12. That covenant which is different from the first covenant in that it is not an occasion of complaint in that it was broken, and they continued not in it, is made onelyonly to the elect: But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Heb. 8.7, 8, 9. Ergo.
13. The covenant which ingageth God to write his lawes in the hearts of those to whom it is made, …s made onelyonly to the elect, for God doth this onelyonly to them: But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Heb. 8.10. & 10.16. Ergo.
14. The covenant of which Christ is Mediator, is made onelyonly to the elect. for he is mediator for them onelyonly, sith he prayes for them onelyonly, John 17.9, And he is Mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance, Heb. 9.15. But such is the new covenant or covenant of grace, Heb. 12.24 Ergo.
15. That covenant which is an everlasting Covenant, is made onelyonly to the elect, for the covenant with reprobates is not everlasting. But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Heb. 13.20. Ergo
16 That in which are given the sure mercies of David, is made onelyonly to the elect, for no other have them given to them: But such is the new covenant, or covenant of grace, Isa. 55.3. Ergo.
17. That covenant which engageth God to give to them to whom it is made, deliverance from all enemies, and to serve God in holiness and righteousness before him all the dayes of their life without fear, is made onelyonly to the elect, for to them onelyonly God performs it: But such is the covenant of grace, Luke 1.73, 74, 75. Ergo
That covenant which assures perseverance to them to whom it was made, is made onelyonly to the elect, for they onelyonly persevere: But such is the new covenant of grace, Isa. 54▪9, 10. Jer. 32▪40. Ergo.
19. If the covenant of grace be made with other than the elect, then it is the absolute or condi…ionall covenant, as Mr B. distinguisheth; but neither: Not the first, as Mr B. confesse…h; nor the conditionall, for it is made onelyonly with believers, and they are onelyonly the elect. I grant it is propounded, as Dr Twisse speaks, Animad. in Corinth. Defens. pag. 235▪ or as others say, offered or tendered to others, but made with the elect. Ergo.
If the covenant of grace be made to any other than to the elect, then with all, which seems to be Mr. Bs opinion, when he saith, Plain Scripture Proof, &c. pag: 316, The new Covenant is conditionall and universall. But it is not made withall. That covenant which was made with all, had Adam for the common head, but the new covenant was not made with Adam as the common head, but with Christ who is given for a covenant of the people, Isai. 49.8. and therefore rhe promise was, that the seed of the woman should break the Serpents head, Gen. 3.15. which Mr B most corruptly interprets, Of the whole seed of the woman, infants as well as others. Plain Scripture proof, &c. part. 1. Chap. 24. pag. 69, but it is true primarily or onelyonly of Christ, Heb. 2.14. But Christ is not a common head to all, but onelyonly to the elect, who are chosen in him, Eph. 1.3, 4. Ergo
I omit the Arguments which Doctor Twisse urgeth in his Animadversions on Corinus, pag. 346. Answer to M. Hoard, pag. 283.286. Doctor Kendall, Vindic. part 3. ch. 18▪ pag. 14, 15, and hasten to consider what Mr B. saith further against me.
And he saith in his Examen and Apology, that Mr M. speakes like Corinus and the Arminians, in his asserting the conditional sealing, and when he talks of the Covenant, Christs suretiship, &c. To which I answer, A great many hotspurs of this age do make any thing Arminianism, which is but contradictory to Antinomianism. I will not say Mr T. is an Antinomian, for I think he is not; but this opinion, that the covenant of grace, which baptism sealeth, is onelyonly to the elect, and is not conditionall, is one of the two Master-pillars in the Antinomian Fabrick▪
Answer. 1. If any Antinomian or Antipaedobaptist hath been in this age a verier hot-spur than Mr B. let him be disciplin'd at Bedlem: For my part I know none that hath in his Writings shewed so much heat (call it fury or zeal as you please) with so much confidence and peremptoriness, and so many mistakes against Antinomians, Antipaedobaptists, and others, as he ha…h don. And surely they want not considerate men that fear lest the esteem he …a…h gotten by his practical Writings, and for infant-baptism, and the Ministery, may occasion the swallowing down of some things he vents about univers…ll redemption, universall covenant of grace, uncertainty of perseverance, and salvation, the condition of justification, which with…ut more than a grain of salt will turn to A…miniani…m and Popery if received by such understandings as are not of good concoction. Nor do I know any man who under so great a shew of se…king truth and peace in the Church, hath more hindred both. For tha… wh…ch he saith, That this opinion that the covenant of grace is onelyonly to elect, and is n…t conditionall, is one of the pillars of Antinomianism. I have made some search into my books, and made use of my memory, and though I find that in the Synod at New Town in New England, August 30, 1637, this is made the 81 Error of the Antinomians, That where faith is held forth by the Ministery as the condition of the …ovenant of grace on mans part, as also evidencing justification by sanctification and the activity of faith, in that Church there is not sufficien… bread And in other books they are charged wi…h error in holding the covenant of grace absolute, so as if by it men were exempted from duty, they were justified without faith, &c. Yet I never to my remembrance heard th…s charged with Antinomianism, that the covenant of grace is made onelyonly to the elect, but find it avouched by many of their best Antagonists; and the covenant of grace is held by able Anti-Arminians unconditionall in th…se two senses, 1. That God requires no condition from us to be performed by our power, but what he requires of us to do, he promiseth to works in those to whom he makes promise in that covenant. 2 That in the covenant of grace God requires no condition which is of an uncertain event, but to those to whom he makes his promises of righteousness, forgiveness, eternall life, he also by covenant assures repentance, faith, and perseverance: and therefore though some proposals of the covenant of grace be conditionall, yet no promise as it stands in the entire covenant, is conditionall: and therefore the covenant and all the promises to be termed absolute and conditionall.
Mr. B. adds, 2. But to these Mr B. hath fully answered Mr. T. and fully cleared Mr M. and himself from the charge of symbolizing with the Arminians; and hath fully proved, that the entrance into covenant, and acceptation of the term of it (though not sincerely and unreservedly) is common to the elect and reprobate; and that the reprobate are within the verge of the covenant, as tendered in the Gospel, and accepted (as beforesaid with a half heart.) And if any that are run into the other extream, shall think that this affirming that [Christ hath brought the reprobate also into the covenant of grace conditionall] be any part of the Arminian errors, as the whole Scripture is against them, so Mr. Blake hath said enough to satisfie.
Answer. What Mr Blake asserted and took upon him to prove, did neither contradict what I said, nor vindicate Mr M. who said in his Sermon pag. 49.1. That God did seal to Infants presently, and put their name into the Deed. 2. That in the mean time untill they come to years of discretion, Jesus Christ who is the surety of the covenant, Heb. 7.22. and the surety of all the covenanters, is pleased to be their surety. 3. That God accepts of such a seal on their parts as they are able to give in their infant age, expecting a future ratification on their part, when they are come to riper years. 4. That in the mean time he affords them the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him. 5. When they are grown men, they may refuse to stand to this covenant, and nullifie all.
These things I count symbolizing with Arminians, to say that infants who may and do when they come to age, refuse to stand to this covenant, are for a while afforded by God the favour and priviledge of being in covenant with him, even in that covenant of which Jesus Christ is their surety, and that for a while Jesus Christ is their surety which contains three points of Arminianism, 1. That God affords them the favour of being in covenant with him in that covenant of which Christ is surety, who are reprobates. 2. That Christ is their sure…y. 3. That they may be thus in covenant for a time onelyonly. To say that any is afforded the favour of being in covenant with God who may be so for a time, and that Christ is surety for such covenanters, is to hold that God makes this new covenant with other than the elect, and that Christ is surety for them, is to hold that the new covenant is made with all, and that it doth not assure effectuall calling and perseverance, but is upon an uncertain condition left to mans will, which are condemned as the Arminians errors on the second and fifth Articles, by the Deputies of Gelderland Act Synod. Dordr. Judic. Theol. Prov. pag. 131. Of South-Holland pag. 141, 142. Of North-Holland▪ pag 154. Of Zealand, pag. 159. Of Virecht, pag. 162, 163, 171. Of Friesland, pag. 181, &c. Profess. Belg▪ pag. 30… ▪ Disput. G…ld. pag. 324. Transisul. pag. 371, and others.
And whereas Mr. Bl. Vindic Foed. pag. 39. chargeth me with misci…ing Corvinus, I confesse I have not now his book by me, having lost it, yet such remaining notes as I have by me, do give me cause to think there is somewhat to that purpose in or neer the place, and however it is carried on, Corvinus by the Deputies at the Synod of Dort, in his Defence of Arminius against Tilenus, and by Dr. Twisse in his Animad▪ pag. 346. and generally charged on the Arminians by other Authors forecited: And though I count Mr M. far from Arminianism, yet I again say, the speeches he used do symbolize with their language. Mr. B. adds,
He that will deny Reprobates to be so far within the covenant of grace, must not onelyonly deny Infant-baptism, but all Sacraments, till he be able infallibly to discern a man to be elect. And doubtless this interest in the covenant is … fruit of Christs death.
Answer. I deny not but Reprobates may be in the covenant of grace in this sense, they may have it tendred to them by the preachers of the Gospel, they may accept of that tender with half an heart, they may think themselves to be in it, they may by baptism engage themselves to believe unto the death, they may be received into the Church, deemed to be really in the covenant of grace▪ But it is not true that God ever made the new covenant to or with them, or that Christ as a mediator brought them into the covenant of grace… or was surety of them, or that God afforded them for a time the favour of being in covenant with him. And though I deny not that it is a fruit of Christs death, that whosoever believeth on him should live, yet that this is not obtained for the reprobate, but the elect; nor a part by it self, but together with this, that he should gather into one the Children of God that were scattered abroad, John 11, 52. And that they which are called might receive the promise of eternall inheritance, Heb. 9.15. Nor need I by these assertions of mine deny Baptism or the Lords Supper to any man till I be able to discern him infallibly to be a man elect. For I have warrant to baptize him if he shew by his profession that he is a Disciple of Christ, and though I knew infallibly he were one of those whom God would save, and had promised saving grace to him, and in that sense were in the covenant of grace, yet for the present not a D…sciple, I should justifiably refuse to baptize him. And this is a sufficient plea why we baptize not infants of believers, because they are not then Disciples, no not though it could be proved God had promised to be their God.
Mr. B. adds, Mr T. one day in the pulpit in pleading that the covenant belonged onelyonly to the elect, was pleased to bring me in as witnessing thereto, in the Append. of my Aphor. pag. 43. because I there say, that the absolute promise, or prophesie there mentioned is made onelyonly to the elect; when yet onelyonly the very scope of the place is to prove that it is not the absolute promise that is most fitly called the Covenant of grace.
Answer. My alledging Mr Bs words was right and pertinent: For they acknowledged the promise Heb. 8.10, to be absolute, and to the elect onelyonly, which was enough for my purpose, and this the Author of that Episte calls the new Covenant or Testament, and however, Mr Bs conceit is I have proved before the holy Ghost doth make it to be the Covenant of God, and therefore I deem it fitly be called the covenant of grace, chusing to speak as the Scripture speaks, rather than as Mr B. conceives sittest.